P.Sasikala v. Thiru. Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S.,

2024:MHC:3715

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 24.10.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN Contempt Petition No.2467 of 2024 1.P.Sasikala 2.K.Chitalakshmi 3.S.Christy Sudha 4.K.Josephine Chandrakala .... Petitioners Vs Thiru Gagandeep Singh Bedi, IAS, Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

.... Respondent PRAYER: PETITION under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying the directions of this Court in WA.No.3954 of 2019 dated 01.11.2021 in so far as the 4 petitioners herein are concerned.

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar For Respondent : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.) The present contempt petition has been filed by R1 to R4 in WA.No.3954 of 2019. When the matter is called, Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader engaged to appear on behalf of the appellants would point out that R1 to R19 in the writ appeal have already filed Contempt Petition No.839 of 2022, which is pending before this Court. In such circumstances, he would object to the filing of a second contempt petition by the very same parties. 2.Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appears for the Contempt Petitioners (R1 to R4 in the Writ Appeal) would submit that the earlier contempt petition had been filed by all the respondents in Writ Appeal.

One development was that post institution of that contempt petition, an SLP had been filed by the respondents in the contempt petition and notice has been issued only in respect of R5 to R19 in Writ Appeal. Hence, according to him, the order in Writ Appeal No.3954 of 2019 dated 01.11.2021 has attained finality as regards R1 to R4 and this would give rise to a fresh cause of action.

3.We disagree. It is for the contempt petitioners (R1 to R4) to pursue Cont.P.No.839 of 2022 as that cause of action espoused therein continues now. The present contempt petition is merely a reiteration of the very same cause of action qua the same parties as arrayed in Cont.P.No.839 of 2022 and hence cannot be

maintained. Hence, this contempt petition is closed. Needless to say, it is open to the petitioners to move the existing contempt petition and obtain necessary orders therein. No costs.

(A.S.M.,J) (G.A.M.,J) 24.10.2024 Index:Yes/No Speaking order vs

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

and MR. G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

vs Contempt Petition No.2467 of 2024 24.10.2024