Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40635
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.Swaminathan, S.Srimathy, JJ
Fatima SA – Appellant
Versus
A.K.Kamal Kishore IAS – Respondent
Cont.P.(MD)No.93 of 2026 | W.P.(MD)No.6051 of 2025 | Sub.A.(MD)No.169 of 2026
For the Petitioners: Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For the Respondents:Mr.T.Amjadkhan, Government Advocate
Once action is initiated pursuant to a court direction, a contempt petition may be closed.
Headnote:The relevant statute is Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The facts indicate that the petitioner sought direction to demolish an unauthorized construction, resulting in an order dated 20.03.2025 requiring authorities to conduct an enquiry and remove the construction if found unauthorized within twelve weeks. The court's findings include that following the initial direction, a lock and seal order was issued and a regularization request by the affected party was rejected. The second paragraph addresses the issues framed by the court concerning enforcement of its prior order on unauthorized construction. The ratio decidendi highlights that once action is initiated pursuant to a court direction, there is no point in keeping the contempt petition pending. The result of the case is that the contempt petition stands closed and the connected sub-application is closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. direction for enquiry and removal of unauthorized construction. (Para 1) |
| 2. contempt petition closed as action initiated pursuant to court direction. (Para 2) |
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
The petitioner herein filed W.P.(MD)No.6051 of 2025 for directing the authorities to demolish the construction put up by one Syed Ambiya. The said writ petition was disposed of on 20.03.2025 in the following terms:-
“Recording the said submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry with regard to the construction put up by the 4th respondent and give opportunity of hearing to the 4th respondent. If ultimately they find that the construction made by the 4th respondent is unauthorised one, the same shall be removed in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”
2.Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, lock and seal order was passed by the Executive Officer of Town Panchayat, Vadakarai Keezhpidakai. On receipt of the said order, Syed Ambiya filed an application for regularizing her construction. This request was rejected on the ground that she purchased the property after the cut off date. Challenging the said rejection order, W.P.(MD)No.9686 of 2026 was filed. The writ petition was allowed on 09.04.2026 and the matter was remitted to the file of the authority for fresh consideration. A specific finding was given that Syed Ambiya's vendor had purchased the plot prior to the cut off date and therefore the reason set out in the rejection order was not sustainable. The authorities are yet to pass any final order. We are satisfied that in these circumstances, there is no point in keeping this contempt petition pending any further. This is because pursuant to our direction, action was initiated. Hence, this contempt petition stands closed. Consequently, connected sub application is closed.
