Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 36962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Velmurugan, K. Govindaraj Thilakavadi, JJ
P.Balasubramani – Appellant
Versus
Shri. Jitendra Gupta Director General of Posts – Respondent
CONT.P.No. 2 of 2026|W.P.No.24548 of 2013
For Petitioners: Mr.P.Rajendran
For Respondents:
Subsequent contempt petitions on same cause of action unnecessary if prior ones pending.
Headnote:Under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, petitioners sought punishment for alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 27.04.2023 in a batch of writ petitions. Essential facts involve non-compliance claims following a prior court order directing certain actions. The court found that prior contempt proceedings had already been initiated by some petitioners on the same cause. The court addressed whether subsequent contempt petitions could be entertained on identical grounds. The ratio decidendi holds that filing multiple contempt petitions on the very same cause of action is unnecessary, as prior pending proceedings suffice. The Contempt Petition is closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contempt petition for non-compliance of prior writ order. (Para 1) |
| 2. prior contempt proceedings pending on same cause. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. subsequent petitions unnecessary; petition closed. (Para 4) |
(Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan J.)
This Contempt Petition has been filed for non-compliance of the order made in W.P.No.24548 of 2013 dated 27.04.2023.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.
3. It is seen from the records, as well as from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that pursuant to the common order dated 27.04.2023 passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, some of the petitioners therein have already initiated contempt proceedings alleging violation and willfull disobedience of the said order, and the same are pending consideration.
4. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the filing of subsequent contempt petitions on the very same cause of action is unnecessary and therefore, is not inclined to entertain the same. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is closed.
