Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2184
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T.ASHA, J.
T.Shankar - Appellant
Versus
N.Sankar - Respondent
Contempt Petition Nos.609 and 610 of 2025
Decided on : 28-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.B.Jawahar in both Cont.P
For the Respondents:Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, AAG in both Cont.P assisted by Mr.A.Anandan, Government Advocate
Wilful disobedience of court orders by a public servant constitutes civil contempt, necessitating accountability and disciplinary action.
Headnote:
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(b) - Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 - Disobedience of court orders - Public servant found guilty of contempt for manipulating records and disobeying court orders, resulting in wilful contempt. (Paras 8, 14)
(B) Civil Contempt - Definition and implications - Wilful disobedience of court orders constitutes civil contempt, requiring clear evidence of intentional disregard. (Paras 9, 10, 12)
(C) Judicial conduct - Public servants must uphold the law and maintain integrity; failure to do so results in disciplinary action. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a cultivator, faced refusal from the Village Administrative Officer to issue necessary documents for selling harvested paddy due to an improper order from the Revenue Court. The petitioner filed contempt petitions after discovering manipulation of records by the presiding officer.
Findings of Court:
The court found the presiding officer guilty of contempt for wilfully disobeying its stay order and manipulating records.
Issues: The main issues included the presiding officer's conduct in disobeying court orders and the manipulation of records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that wilful disobedience of court orders constitutes contempt, and the presiding officer's actions were deemed intentional and calculated.
Result: Contemnor found guilty of contempt, sentenced to 2 days in civil prison and fined Rs.2,000/-; disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against her.
ORDER :
A public servant who has a duty to uphold the law and maintain the integrity of administration has not only failed in the above duty, but has also, with impunity, disobeyed the orders of this Court. The impunity and the disobedience are all the more shocking in as much as she has manipulated the records.
2. The petitioner herein is the respondent in the application filed under Section 3(2)(b) of The Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 before the Revenue Court, Mayiladuthurai which Court is presiding over by the 2nd respondent.
3. The petitioner would submit that after harvesting the paddy on 16.08.2024, he had approached the Village Administrative Officer for the issuance of Chitta and Adangal to produce it before the Government Direct Procurement Centre for the sale of paddy. The Village Administrative Officer had refused to grant the said documents stating that the 2nd respondent had passed an order not to grant Chitta and Adangal in respect of the subject survey numbers. The petitioner had demanded for a copy of this order and on perusal of the same, he came to know that the 2nd respondent in her capacity as a Presiding Officer of the Revenue Court, Mayiladuthurai, had simply sent a letter to the Village Administrative Officer not to issue Chitta and Adangal in respect of the survey numbers and there was no order passed under any proceedings. The petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent regarding this and he was rudely informed that nobody could question the 2nd respondent's power. To add insult to injury, it appears that the 2nd respondent had not issued a copy of the said communication and when a copy application was filed, the 2nd respondent had refused to receive the same. Thereafter, the petitioner would submit that in the next hearing on 21.08.2024, he was present with his counsel in Court. However, his case was not called and when the counsel had informed the 2nd respondent about the case not having been called, she had abused his counsel. The 2nd respondent had conducted the Court in a biased manner and had not followed the proper procedures. Therefore, in the light of the conduct of the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent had filed Tr.C.M.P.Nos.873 and 874 of 2025 and had filed C.M.P.Nos.19239 and 19241 of 2024 for stay of all further proceedings in P.Nos.144 and 145 of 2024. This Court had, on 03.09.2024, passed an order of stay of all further proceedings in P.Nos.144 and 145 of 2014 before the Contemnor. The order was communicated to the 2nd respondent on the very same day, i.e on 04.09.2024. After receiving the above communication, the petitioner was shocked to receive an order alleged to have signed on 07.08.2024 by the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner would submit that on 07.08.2024, he had not been served with any notice regarding the posting of the case on the said date. After 12.06.2024, the petitioner was called to appear only on 21.08.2024 on which date though he was present the matter was not taken up. Since the order has been passed after this Court had stayed the orders, the petitioner has come forward with the above Contempt Petitions.
4. This Court, on 17.04.2025, had directed the production of the records relating to all the proceedings that the Officer had dealt with between the period 26.07.2024 till 01.10.2024. On perusal of the files, it would show that from 12.06.2024, the petitioner cases were listed at Serial Nos. 132 and 133. In the next hearing on 19.06.2024, the same position continued and this continued till 26.06.2024. Thereafter, the files would show a hearing on 07.08.2024 and these 2 cases are displayed as Sl.Nos.89 and 90.
5. The record of cases has been produced before this Court. A perusal of this would show that, a notice dated 05.08.2024 containing the statement with the annexures showing the list of cases has been sent to the Secretary of the Advocate Association, Mayiladuthurai. The 89th and 90th item in the list pertain to the two cases which have be
