S.Sandhamurthy, v. Thiru. A.Neelaveni,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY S.Sandhamurthy ... Petitioner Vs Thiru.A.Neelaveni, The Revenue Tahsildar, Marakkanam Taluk Office, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

... Respondent Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to enquire and punish the respondent for the wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 12135 of 2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Babu Varadharajan For Respondent : Mr.S.Balamurugan Government Advocate

ORDER

The contempt petition has been filed complaining willful disobedience of the Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12135 of 2025, dated 08.04.2025.

2. The petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent, namely the Revenue Tahsildar, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District to implement the order passed by the first respondent, namely the District Collector, Villupuram, dated 07.03.2025, with 1/4

reference to the auctioning of tamarind trees and palm trees.

3. When the matter came up for hearing, this Court disposed of the writ petition No. 12135 of 2025 by giving the following direction: "4. In view of the said undertaking given by the second respondent that they will look into the representation made by the petitioner and also forwarding the letter of the District Collector and take action accordingly within a period of 15 days is recorded. The second respondent shall also send an observer during the auction. The parties shall act on the web copy of the order without waiting for the certified copy."

4. When the matter came up for hearing now, the learned Government Advocate produced an order dated 18.07.2025 stating that the representation has since been disposed of by the second respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order has not been complied with in the spirit of the order and that even the allegations raised by the petitioner have not been dealt with.

6. Upon perusing the order dated 18.07.2025, it can be seen that the representation has been considered and an order has been passed. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the 2/4

second respondent has not dealt with the allegations made by the petitioner on merits and has merely stated that the petitioner can file an appeal against the auction proceedings/order before the Director of Panchayats, Marakkanam and seek relief.

7. In view thereof, this contempt petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal as per the order dated 18.07.2025 within one week from today. If and when such appeal is filed, the Director of Panchayats, Marakkanam, Villupuram District shall consider the same and pass a speaking order in respect of the allegations specifically made by the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of the appeal.

8. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands disposed of. No costs. 18.08.2025 nsl D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

nsl 3/4

To 1.

The Revenue Tahsildar, Marakkanam Taluk Office, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

2.

The Director of Panchayats, Marakkanam, Villupuram District.

18.08.2025 4/4