N. Mahalingam (Rtd Rc), v. M. Pradeep Kumar,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.03.2023

CORAM

The Honourable Mr. Justice R.SURESH KUMAR and The Honourable Mr. Justice K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Cont.P.(MD)No.1517 of 2022 N.Mahalingam .. Petitioner Vs.

1.M.Pradeep Kumar The District Collector, Trichy District.

2.R.Lalitha The Commissioner/ The Block Development Officer, Thiruverumbur Trichy District.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the contemnors/respondents for their wilful, deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court made in WA(MD) No.1429/2021 dated 26.07.2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Lakshmanan For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.] This Contempt Petition has been filed for the alleged disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 26.07.2021 made in WA(MD) No. 1429/2021, under which, the Division Bench of this Court had allowed the writ appeal filed by the petitioner herein, consequently given direction to the appellant therein, who is the petitioner herein, to give a representation seeking promotion to the respondents and on receipt of such representation, it was further directed that the first respondent therein to get remarks from the third respondent District Collector, after considering the same, a speaking order shall be passed and communicate to the petitioner, that is the order, according to the petitioner, has not been complied with. Therefore, the present contempt petition.

2. Today, when the contempt petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner also, pursuant to the said order, had given representation on 15.05.2022 and the said representation, having been considered, based on

the remarks that has been submitted by the third respondent therein ie., District Collector dated 07.11.2022, was decided and the plea of the petitioner was rejected through the order of the District Collector, ie., the first respondent herein dated 01.02.2023. The copy of the said order dated 01.02.2023 has been produced before this Court.

3. Having considered the said order passed by the respondent, especially, the first respondent and taking note of the aforesaid development, where an order since has been passed and communicated to the petitioner, this Court feels that no further persuasive order is required to be passed in the contempt petition. Hence, the contempt petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue by challenging the order dated 01.02.2023, if he is advised to do so in the manner known to law. (R.S.K.,J.) (K.K.R.K.,J.) 20.03.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes RR

R.SURESH KUMAR,J.

and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

RR Cont P.(MD)No.1517 of 2022 20.03.2023