Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2662
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, K.RAJASEKAR, JJ.
M.Siva, S/o. Manickam - Appellant
Versus
Thiru. B.Ganesan, I.A.S. - Respondent
CONT P No. 2264 of 2024 and SUB APPL No. 840 of 2024
Decided on : 02-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.P.Kannankumar
For the Respondent: Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh, Special Government Pleader, Mr.P.Srinivas, Mr.K.R.Arun Shabari
Repeated litigation without revealing prior judicial orders constitutes an abuse of process, warranting contempt proceedings to ensure compliance with court directives.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Contempt of Court - Abuse of Judicial Process - The builder's attempts to delay enforcement actions through successive writ petitions without revealing prior orders constitute an abuse of process. The court emphasized the necessity to enforce compliance with previous judicial orders, particularly the demolition directives issued previously. (Paras 1, 6, 10, and 11)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - The court highlighted the importance of presenting all relevant facts to avoid complications and ensure compliance with existing legal orders. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought enforcement of a previous order against unauthorized constructions, which had been subject to multiple litigations and appeals by the builder, who failed to comply with the orders of both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the municipal and planning authorities to execute demolition orders as specified in the original judgment and completed within four weeks.
Issues: The court addressed whether the builder's failure to comply with judicial directions constituted contempt and highlighted the abuse of the judicial process through repetitive litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the systematic disregarding of prior binding judgments aimed at enforcement justified the contempt proceedings against the builder, affirming the court's authority to ensure compliance and discourage dilatory tactics.
Result: The respondents are directed to implement the previous demolition orders within four weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contempt petition for disobedience of court order. (Para 1) |
| 2. initiation of contempt proceedings. (Para 2) |
| 3. background of unauthorized construction and court orders. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. omission of prior rulings in subsequent petitions. (Para 7) |
| 5. abuse of judicial process and multiple petitions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. mandatory enforcement of court's prior ruling. (Para 11) |
| 7. compliance reporting by the commissioner. (Para 12) |
ORDER :
S.M.Subramaniam, J.
The contempt petition has been instituted to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 07.02.2018 passed in W.P.No.6516 of 2017.
2. The builder/violator Mrs.R.Mohala filed Sub Application No.840 of 2024 seeking impleadment.
3. The facts in nutshell reveal that Mr.M.Siva filed WP No.6516 of 2017 seeking direction to the Commissioner, Panruti Municipality to take action against the unauthorized constructions located at Door Nos.84, 85A, Kumbakonam Road, Ward-A, Block No.50, T.S.Nos.37, 38, 39, as per the letters of the Assistant Commissioner, Town and Country Planning Department, dated 10.06.2016 and 15.02.2017 and by affording opportunity to the parties.
4. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition on 07.02.2018. Directions were issued to demolish the violated portions of the building within a period of one month. Pertinently, the builder Smt.R.Mohala is th the 7 respondent in the said writ petition. The Division Bench has elaborately considered the issues on merits and passed a detailed order. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by Smt.R.Mohala and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 10.05.2024. The Review Application filed before the Division Bench of this Court was also dismissed.
5. Again, the said Smt.R.Mohala filed another writ Petition in W.P.No.9673 of 2022 challenging the rejection order passed by the Government in G.O.(3D).No.19, Housing and Urban Development Department, Dated 01.02.2021. The Division Bench of this Court passed final orders on 12.01.2023 as follows:
“6. Considering the above submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief now sought for and the petitioner is given liberty to renew her request for regularisation based on the orders to be passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(C).No.12460 of 2018.
7.With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
6. Once again, the said Smt.R.Mohala filed W.P.No.18713 of 2024 challenging the Demolition Notice issued by the Commissioner, Panruti Municipality on 14.06.2024 and to consider the application for regularization. The said writ order was disposed of with a direction to consider the application.
7. Pertinently, none of the facts regarding the detailed adjudication made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6516 of 2017 dated 07.02.2018 has been placed before the Court. Dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court. A simple direction was obtained as if the petition for regularization is pending.
8. The judicial process has been abused in order to protect the unauthorized constructions. Again this Court, directed the Commissioner, Panruti Municipality to submit a report and the status report filed by the Commissioner, Panruti Municipality reveals about the unauthorized constructions and its details, which reads as under:
“3. During the inspection, Petitioner herein and third respondent were present. The measurements of the building were taken and the deviations in the Building are given as per the tabular column below:
| Rule No | Parameter | Required | Provided | Violation | Violation | Remarks | |
| 35 (b) (d) (i) | Front setback | Commercial | 4.50 m | 4.54 m | Nil | Nil | Satisfied |
| 36(d)(D)(ii) | Side setback (1) | Commercial | 1.50 m | 0.90 m | 0.30 m | 20.00% | Not Satisfied |
| 36(d) (D) (ii) | Sid | ||||||
