MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Contempt Petition No.3283 of 2024 — John Chandy, S/o Mr.J.Chandy

by Sekar Reporter · May 25, 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Orders Reserved on : 08.04.2025

Orders Pronounced on : 28.04.2025

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

Contempt Petition No.3283 of 2024 —

John Chandy, S/o Mr.J.Chandy .. Petitioner

Vs.

1. Mr.Kranthi Kumar Patil,

District Collector,

Office of the District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore – 641 018.

2. Ms.M.Sharmila,

District Revenue Officer,

Office of the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore – 641 018.

3. Mr.P.K.Govindan,

Revenue Divisional Office,

Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer

(Coimbatore North), Coimbatore District, Coimbatore – 641 030.

4. Mr.Manivel,

Thasildar,

Coimbatore North Taluk Office, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore – 641 018.

5. Ms.Yamuna,

Village Administrative Officer,

Office of the Village Administrative Officer,

Coimbatore District,

Coimbatore – 641 035. .. Respondents

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for wanton and wilfull violation of the order dated

08.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.29844 of 2023.

For petitioner : Mr.A.Nagarajan

For respondents: Mr.R.Ramanlal, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran, Spl.G.P.

ORDER

On 08.04.2025, except the fifth respondent, the other respondents 1

to 4 are present before this Court.

2. This Contempt Petition is filed to punish the respondents for

wanton and wilful violation of the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition in W.P.No.29844 of 2023.

3. The above said Writ Petition was filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 5 in the Writ Petition to take necessary action, in view of the petitioner’s representations, dated 07.09.2021, 23.01.2023, 03.05.2023 and 26.07.2023, by removing the illegal entry in Patta records, i.e. the name of Kumaresan and Sharadha Devi in the petitioner’s absolute properties situated at S.F.No.379 and 380, Chinnavedamptti Village, Coimbatore District.

4. In the above said Writ Petition, this Court passed the following

order on 08.11.2023:

“6. Since the writ petition has been filed to consider the petitioner’s representations, this Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 07.09.2021, 21.03.2023, 03.05.2023, 26.07.2023 and pass appropriate orders, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as rival claimants / interested parties, if any. Such exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

5. The averments of the petitioner are as follows:

(a) In view of the order dated 08.11.2023, the petitioner sent

representations to the first respondent for conducting the enquiry as directed by this Court and based on his representations, the petitioner and the opposite party were called for enquiry before the first respondent on 13.02.2024 in Na.Ka.No.6443/2023. On 13.02.2024, the petitioner, along with his counsel, appeared before the first respondent and submitted the Vakalat authorising his counsel to appear and make representations on behalf of the petitioner and also submitted the petitioner’s representations and documents supporting his claim. However, the opposite party through their counsel, sought time to submit their representations and supporting documents and hence, the enquiry was adjourned to another date.

(b) Subsequent to the above, on the next date of hearing, the learned

counsel for the opposite party appeared before the first respondent and submitted the documents in support of their claim and the first respondent adjourned the matter to another date for enquiry and after the same, the petitioner visited the first respondent’s office and submitted his request for fixing enquiry date, but the petitioner’s efforts were unsuccessful due to the first respondent’s negligence in responding to the petitioner’s requests.

enquiry on 22.04.2024, but none had appeared for the opposite party and hence, the matter was adjourned to 15.05.2024, on which date, the petitioner appeared for enquiry, but again, the opposite party never appeared for the enquiry before the first respondent, who stated that since the notice of enquiry to the opposite party was not served, the enquiry could not be conducted.

(d) Stating the reason that the notice of enquiry had not been served

on the opposite party, the first respondent did not conduct the enquiry, but the opposite party had already appeared for previous enquiries and submitted their representation and hence, it was a very deliberate attempt on the part of the opposite party to evade participation in the enquiry before the first respondent.

(e) The opposite party voluntarily evaded the enquiry before the first

respondent and the first respondent, despite having knowledge of the same did not pass appropriate order in favour of the opposite party by behaving like a mute-spectator.

(f) As there was no progress in the enquiry, the petitioner had given

his representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 21.05.2023, based upon the order passed by this Court on 08.11.2023 in W.P.No.29844 of 2023. Even after receipt of the said representation, the first respondent has not proceeded with or followed up the directions of this Court.

(g) This Court, on 08.11.2023, passed order in W.P.No.29844 of 2023

with a specific instruction to the respondents to complete the enquiry and pass orders within two months from the date of receipt of the order, however, the first respondent, instead of completing the enquiry before the time frame fixed by this Court, is voluntarily dragging the proceedings without passing any order.

(h) The first respondent, from initiation of the enquiry, did not

conduct the proceedings in a timely manner by not fixing a specific date of enquiry and by also not conducting the enquiry even during the specified date as provided by him. The petitioner had personally met the first respondent on several occasions and had requested him to pass necessary orders based on the documents submitted by the parties and further requested him to comply with the directions of this Court in the aforementioned writ petition.

(i) After making repeated requests, the petitioner was called for

enquiry before the first respondent on 28.06.2024, however, inspite of both the parties being present, the first respondent was absent and hence, the enquiry was not conducted. The petitioner’s all attempts for calling upon the first respondent to comply with the directions of this Court in the Writ Petition under contempt, had turned futile and the first respondent, despite the knowledge of the specific order, had flouted the same.

(j) Hence, the petitioner issued a contempt notice to the respondents

herein on 28.06.2024 and there was no response towards the same. The petitioner being 74 year old man, had been driven from pillar to post by the respondents, despite the specific direction of this Court. The contempt notice was issued to all the respondents herein by Registered Post with

Acknowledgement Due and inspite of the specific directions of this Court in this regard and despite issuance of contempt notice, they had failed to respond.

(k) The respondents had shown utter apathy and immense

indifference in complying with the order passed by this Court and the same had impelled the petitioner to file this Contempt Petition. Hence, the petitioner had been put to immense suffering and hardship on account of the scant respect shown by the respondents to the order passed by this Court. Hence, for the above reasons, the present Contempt Petition is filed to punish the respondents for wanton and in wilful violation of the order passed by this Court on

08.11.2023 in W.P.No.29844 of 2023.

6. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit stating as follows:

(a) The first respondent has been transferred from the post of District Collector, Coimbatore District and Thiru.Pavankumar G.Giriappanavar, IAS, had assumed charges on 13.02.2025 as the District Collector, Coimbatore.

(b) The first respondent tenders unconditional apology before this

Court without any reservation whatsoever for any of the act of commission or omission on any part that may be considered or construed or likely to be construed as being an act, commission or omission in violation of the order of this Court. The deponent has the highest regard and much respect for this Court and obeying the order passed by this Court in letter and spirit.

this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take action on his representation, dated 07.09.2021, 21.03.2023, 03.05.2023 and 26.07.2023 to remove the illegal entry in Patta number related to S.R.Nos.379 and 380 of Chinnavedampatti Village in Coimbatore North Taluk of Coimbatore District. After hearing the case, this Court, by order dated 08.11.2023, directed as follows:

“6. Since the writ petition has been filed to consider the petitioner’s representations, this Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 07.09.2021, 21.03.2023, 03.05.2023, 26.07.2023 and pass appropriate orders, after affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as rival claimants/interested parties, if any. Such exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

(d) Since there was delay in passing orders as directed above by this Court, the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition to punish the respondents for the wanton and wilful violation of the above order. When the present fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit before this Court during the hearing on 24.03.2025, this Court, after condemning the delay in passing the order, in paragraph 8, directed as follows:

“8. All the named respondents/contemnors

are directed to file individual counter since the counter affidavit filed by the respondents are not satisfied and they all are directed to appear before this Court on

08.04.2025 without fail.”

(e) In obedience to this Court’s order dated 08.11.2023, the fourth

respondent issued notices to the petitioner as well as the rival claimant

S.Kumaresan on 13.02.2024, 23.02.2024, 29.02.2024, 22.04.2024, 15.05.2024, 28.06.2024, 07.08.2024, 04.09.2024 and 23.10.2024, to appear in person with the connected documents and records. The enquiry was adjourned and postponed to various dates mentioned above, in view of the absence of either one or other party and also due to some administrative reasons.

(f) The fourth respondent passed order in Pa.Mu.6443/2023/A1,

dated 13.02.2025, based on the statements given by them during the enquiry, rejected the request of the petitioner. As against the above order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the third respondent on 07.03.2025 and in this regard, enquiry was fixed by the third respondent on 01.04.2025. The petitioner did not attend the enquiry and the rival party, who attended the enquiry on that day did not give any statement on this issue and stated orally that they would send their reply by registered post. Since petitioner did not appear, next enquiry is fixed on 16.04.2025 for obtaining statements from petitioner and orders will be issued on perusal of documents.

(g) In the above circumstances, monthly meetings are being held on Court Case Monitoring System every month and cases are being reviewed. During monthly District Revenue Administration Review meeting, this respondent has reviewed regarding this Court case, and Tahsildar, Coimbatore North has stated that enquiries are being conducted, but order could not be passed as either the petitioner, or the rival party, were not present for the enquiries. Hence, it was instructed to pass orders based on the documents and statement to be submitted by the petitioner and other party.

(h) In the last year, 97 time bound cases, as per the direction of this

Court, have been disposed and for 123 cases, counter affidavits have been followed up for filing on time. The PA (Legal) Post is vacant for the last three years and five Deputy Collectors have held the post as in-charge.

(i) There is no wilful disobedience by the respondents in following the

circular issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration regarding Court cases and request this Court to apologise the respondents. The first respondent also pray that the delay caused may be condoned and the contempt petition may be closed, as the compliance has been made as directed by this Court.

7. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit stating as

follows:

(i) Thiru.Kranti Kumar Pati, IAS, the first respondent, has been

transferred from the post of District Collector, Coimbatore District and Thiru.Pavankumar G.Giriappanavar, IAS has assumed charges on 13.02.2025 as the District Collector, Coimbatore.

(ii) The second respondent tenders unconditional apology before this Court without any reservation whatsoever for any of the act of commission or omission on any part that may be considered or construed or likely to be construed as being an act, commission or omission, in violation of the order of this Court. The deponent has the highest regard and much respect for this Court and obeying the order passed by this Court in its letter and spirit.

(iii) The petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.29844 of 2023 before

this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take action on his representation, dated 07.09.2021, 21.03.2023, 03.05.2023 and 26.07.2023 to remove the illegal entry in Patta Numbers related to S.F.Nos.379 and 380 of Chinnavedampatti Village in Coimbatore North Taluk of Coimbatore District. After hearing the case, this Court, in the order dated 08.11.2023, issued the directions (as extracted above in the preceding paragraph of this order).

(iv) Since there was delay in passing order as directed by this Court

on 08.11.2023, the petitioner in W.P.No.29844 of 2023, filed Contempt Petition No.3283 of 2024 before this Court to punish the respondents for wanton and wilful violation of the above order. In this regard, when the present fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit before this Court during the hearing on 24.03.2025, this Court, after condemning the delay in passing the order, in paragraph 8 (as extracted in the preceding page of this order).

(v) In obedience to the Court’s order dated 08.11.2023, the fourth

respondent issued notices to the petitioner as well as the rival claimant

S.Kumaresan on 13.02.2024, 23.02.2024, 29.02.2024, 22.04.2024, 15.05.2024,

28.06.2024, 07.08.2024, 04.09.2024 and 23.10.2024 to appear in person with connected documents and records. The enquiry was adjourned and postponed to various dates mentioned above, in view of the absence of either one or other party and also due to some administrative reasons.

(vi) The fourth respondent passed his order in Pa.Mu.6443/2023/A1,

dated 13.02.2025 based on the statements given by them during the enquiry, rejected the request of the petitioner. Against the above order, the petitioner herein has filed an appeal before the third respondent on 07.03.2025. In this regard, an enquiry was fixed by the third respondent on 01.04.2025. The petitioner did not attend the enquiry and the rival party who attended the enquiry on that day, did not give any statement on this issue and stated orally that they would send their reply by Registered Post. Since the petitioner did not appear, next enquiry was fixed on 16.04.2025 for obtaining statements from the petitioner and orders will be issued on perusal of the documents.

(vii) In the above circumstances, monthly meetings are being held on Court Case Monitoring System and cases are being reviewed. During monthly District Revenue Administration Review Meeting, the second has reviewed regarding this Court’s case and order could not be passed as either the petitioner, or the rival party were not present for the enquiries. Hence, it was instructed to pass orders based on the documents and statement to be submitted by the petitioner and other party.

(viii) In the last one year, 39 time bound cases, as per the directions

of this Court, have been disposed of and for 6 cases, counter affidavit had been followed up for filing on time. 20 cases of Patta transfer appeals have been disposed in the last six months. The PA (Legal) post is vacant for the last 3 years and 5 Deputy Collectors have held the post as in-charge. After this contempt case, the Court cases are being reviewed on weekly basis to dispose of all the time bound cases, so as to avoid any further contempt and to file counter affidavits in Writ Petitions and Writ Appeal cases in time.

(ix) There is no wilful disobedience by the respondents in following

the circular issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration regarding the Court cases and request this Court to apologise the respondents.

(x) The delay caused may be condoned and the Contempt Petition

may be closed, as the compliance has been made as directed bys this Court.

8. The third respondent has filed counter affidavit, stating as follows:

(i) Thiru.Kranthi Kumar Pati, IAS, being the first respondent, had been

transferred from the post of District Collector, Coimbatore District and Thiru.Pavankumar G.Giriappanavar, IAS, had assumed charges on 13.02.2025 as the District Collector, Coimbatore.

(ii) While tendering unconditional apology, before this Court without

any reservation whatsoever for any of the act of commission or omission on any part that may be considered or construed or likely to be construed as being an act, commission or omission, in violation of the order of this Court. The deponent herein has the highest regard and much respect for this Court and obeying the order passed by this Court in its letter and spirit. The pending Court cases are reviewed periodically in all the three Taluk Offices of the North sub-division and this case also reviewed with Tahsildar North Taluk to expedite the enquiry process.

(iii) In obedience to the Court’s order dated 08.11.2023, the fourth

respondent has issued notices to the petitioner as well as the rival claimants

S.Kumaresan on 13.02.2024, 23.02.2024, 29.02.2024, 22.04.2024, 15.05.2024,

28.06.2024, 07.08.2024, 04.09.2024 and 23.10.2024 to appear in person with connected documents and records. The enquiry was adjourned and postponed to various dates mentioned above, in view of absence of either one or other party and also due to some administrative reasons.

(iv) Since there was delay in passing orders as directed by this Court’s

above order dated 08.11.2023, the petitioner in W.P.No.29844 of 2023 filed a contempt petition No.3283 of 2024 before this Court to punish the respondents for the wanton and wilful violation of the above order. In this regard, when the present fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit before this Court during the hearing on 24.03.2025, this Court, after condemning the delay in passing the orders, in paragraph 8 issued the direction as extracted in the preceding page of this order.

(v) The third respondent has to monitor the implementation of the Tamil Nadu Governments Special Schemes such as “Ungalai Thedi Ungal Ooril” that was held on first and second of February 2024 and 19th and 20th March 2025, in respect of Mettupalayam Taluk. In respect of Annur Taluk, it was held on 26th and 27th December 2023. In addition to this, another scheme called “Makkaludan Mudalvar” scheme has to be conducted in Mettupalayam, Annur and Coimbatore North Taluk in two phases in December 203 and January 2024 as Phase I and from July 2024 to August 2024, by conducting several camps. Although the Camps have been arranged by the respective Taluk Tahsildars, the third respondent has to issue necessary guideline to implement the scheme smoothly. Besides, the third respondent was the “Jamabandhi Officer” to verify village and Taluk accounts relating to 1433 Fasli Year for Coimbatore North Taluk, which consists of 29 villages. Apart from this, the third respondent has been appointed as Electoral Registration Officer for Kavundampalayam, Mettupalayam and Annur Assembly Constituencies for the last 2 years. The third respondent is the Assistant Returning Officer for 117 Kavundampalayam Constituency in respect of General Parliamentary Election 2024, declared by the Election Commission of India. The Election process was commenced from

20.03.2024 by issuing Gazette Notification and ended on 04.06.2024 by declaring the Elections results in Tamil Nadu. Being the Assistant Returning Officer, the third respondent has to monitor all the above Election process that were time bound. The process contains inspection of Polling Stations, securing polling materials and EVM machines and arrangement for strong rooms and setting up counting centre. This was followed by Special Summary Revision of Electoral Roll from 29.10.2024 to 06.01.2025, the date of final publication of Electoral Roll.

Apart from the above specific works, the third respondent being the SubDivisional Magistrate, has to look after the cases of unnatural death under Section 174 of Crl.P.C. and the law and order problem, whenever circumstances warrant in his Sub-Divisional Jurisdictions.

(vi) Amidst the above works, the third respondent issued instructions

to the fourth respondent to expedite the process of issuing orders in this case as directed by this Court in its order, dated 08.11.2023 and part-learnt that the enquiry was fixed on several times by the fourth respondent was postponed, in view of the absence of either the petitioner herein or the rival claimant. Finally, the fourth respondent passed his orders in Pa.Mu.6443/2023/A1, dated 13.02.2025 based on the statement given by them during the enquiry, rejected the request of the petitioner. Against the above order, the petitioner herein has filed an appeal before the third respondent on 07.03.2025. In this regard, an enquiry was fixed by the third respondent on 01.04.2025. The petitioner did not attend the enquiry and the rival party, who attended the enquiry on that day, did not give any statement on this issue and stated orally that they would send their reply by a Registered Post. Another date will be fixed shortly and the third respondent would pass orders based on the documents by the parties and statements made due to enquiry.

(vii) The delay caused is due to above mentioned works and not done

wilfully by the respondents. The delay caused may kindly be condoned and the contempt petition may be closed as the compliance has been made as directed by this Court.

9. The fourth respondent has filed two counter affidavits, one

produced before this Court on 24.03.2025 and the other one is dated

08.04.2025. In the counter affidavit filed on 24.03.2025, it is stated as follows:

(a) Thiru.Kranthi Kumar Pati, IAS, the first respondent, had been

transferred from the post of District Collector, Coimbatore and Thiru.Pavan Kumar G.Giriappanavar, S/o Giriappanavar had assumed charges on 13.02.2025 as the District Collector of Coimbatore District, likewise, the fourth respondent Thiru.Manivel has been transferred from the post of Tahsildar, Coimbatore North Taluk and the present fourth respondent has assumed charges on 11.02.2025 as the Tahsildar, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District.

(b) The fourth respondent tenders his unconditional apology before

this Court without any reservation whatsoever for any of the act of commission or omission on his part that may be considered or construed or likely to be construed as being an act, commission or omission, in violation of the order of this Court. The deponent has the highest regard and much respect for this Court and obeying the orders passed by this Court in its letter and spirit.

respondent had issued notices to the petitioner and the rival claimant

S.Kumaresan on 13.02.2024, 23.02.2024, 29.02.2024, 22.04.2024, 15.05.2024,

(d) From the records produced by the petitioner during the enquiry,

the following events were noticed. An extent of 2.06 acres in S.F.No.379 and an extent of 2.12 acre, in S.F.No.380, totally 4.18 acre in Chinnavedampatti Village of Coimbatore North Taluk was conditionally assigned to Chandy, who is the father of the petitioner by the Authorised Office of Land Reforms, Coimbatore under the Land Ceiling Act, vide AC.Ref.No.46/MRIV, dated 27.06.1974 in Form

F. The assignee, Chandy executed a registered Will No.352/1991 on 01.07.1994 allotting 0.79-1/2 acre to each of his 4 sons and 0.50 acres each to his daughters. After this, the above Chandy expired on 21.08.2007 and as per the Legal Heirship Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore South Taluk, the following are his legal heirs:

(i) Tmt.Mariamma Chandy – wife

(ii) Thiru.John Chandy – son

(iii) Thiru.Thomas Chandy – son

(iv) Thiru.Joseph Chandy – son

(v) Tmt.Elizabeth Chandy – Daughter

(vi) Tmt.Susan Chandy – Daughter

(vii) Thiru.Jacob Chandy – son

(e) Since the conditional period of 20 years had expired, the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Erode has removed the condition and converted as Ayyan Patta in his proceedings No.Mu.Mu.423/2014, dated 11.07.2024 by deleting the name of the assignee Chandy and included the names of his above legal heirs (except the wife) and instructed the Tahsildar, Coimbatore North to effect mutation. Accordingly, the above legal heirs’ names were included as Joint Pattadars in Patta No.1694 and 216, and following this, the above legal heirs sold the property ad-measuring an extent of 1.62 acres in S.F.No.379/1 (leaving 0.43-1/2 acres) and an extent of 2.12 acres in S.F.No.380, vide sale deed No.8160/2021, dated 01.09.2021 to Sri.Dhaksha Innovations and the above property now stands in the name of the above firm and the names of the purchasers from the firm.

(f) The documents produced by the party Kumarasen were perused. The subject land of 0.43-1/2 acres originates from a partition deed No.578/1916, dated 27.11.1916 that was acquired by Srinivasan Iyengar. After several transactions, the property came to the hands of one Subbana Gounder, who released the property to his younger wife Chellamal, son Kumaresen and daughter Saradhadevi. In view of the same, their names were mutated in 0.431/2 acres in S.F.No.379, vide MTR No.211/2001-2002 dated 06.11.2001 and further sub-divided assigning as S.F.No.379/2 and stands in the names of Kumarasan and Saradhadevi in Revenue Records and they are enjoying the

property till date.

(g) The above said total extent of 4.18 acres in S.F.Nos.379 and 380,

had been declared surplus land in terms of G.O.No.6423, Revenue Department, dated 17.10.1973 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 27.10.1973. The name of the original land owner from whom the above land was declared, could not be traced out as no relevant records are available in this office. The subject property of 0.43-1/2 acres, was mutated in the name of the rival party as per the documents produced by him, despite the fact that the petitioner’s father had been issued with assignment land under the Land Reforms Act. An extent of 2.12 acre in S.F.No.380 and an extent of 1.62-1/2 in SF.No.379 in Chinnavedampatty Village in the year 2021 leaving an extent of 0.43-1/2 acres , is a very well knowing fact, which has only been transacted by the legal heirs of the assignee and is in possession of the purchaser. In the year 2021, bearing the extent of 0.43-1/2 acres is very well known in the facts and no appeal under Section 12 of the Patta Passbook Act, or revision petition, had been filed against the Patta transfer effected in the name of Kumaresan and Saradha Devi as ordered in MTR.No.211/2001-2002, dated 06.11.2001 by the petitioner from 2001 to 2014.

(h) In view of the subject land assigned to the father of the petitioner

in the year 1974 and as also the rival party acquired the land from the year 1916 onwards by submitting the relevant records continuously, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the fourth respondent, in his proceedings Pa.Mu.6443/2023/A1, dated 13.02.2025 as the ownership of the land is put into question. An appeal provision has been given in the above order, to apply before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore North within 30 days.

(i) The delay caused to conduct the enquiry directed by the Court, is

due to the adjournment of the enquiry fixed on various dates and also due to administrative reasons and it was not done by the respondents wantonly.

10. The crux of the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent,

dated 08.04.2025, which was produced before this Court, is as under:

(i) Thiru.Kranthi Kumar Pati, I.A.S., the 1st respondent, has been

transferred from the post of District Collector, Coimbatore District and Thiru. Pavankumar G.Giriappanavar, I.A.S., has assumed charges on 13.02.2025 as the District Colletor, Coimbatore.

(ii) The 4th respondent tendered unconditional apology before this Court without any reservation whatsoever for any of the act of commission or omission on any part that may be considered or construed or likely to be construed as being an act, commission or omission, in violation of the order of this Court. The depondent herein has the highest regard and much respect for this Court and obeying the order passed by this Court in its letter and spirit.

(iii) The 4th respondent in between the period from the date of receipt

on 05.02.2024 of this Court’s order and date of passing the order on 13.02.2025, had initiated action in this regard by issuing the enquiry notices to the petitioner as well as the rival claimant S.Kumerasan on 13.02.2024, 23.02.2024, 29.02.2024, 22.04.2024, 15.05.2024, 28.06.2024, 07.08.2024, 04.09.2024, and

23.10.2024 to appear in person with connected documents and records. The enquiry was adjourned and postponed to various date mentioned above, in view of the absence of the either one or other party. The fourth respondent processed the subject matter amid the works related to General Parliamentary Elections, 2024, declared by the Election Commission of India. The poll events commenced with issue of Gazette Notification on 20.03.2024, the last date of nomination : 27.03.2024, the date of scrutiny of nomination:28.03.2024, the last date for withdrawal of candidate was 30.03.2024. The date of polling in Tamil Nadu was fixed on 19.04.2024 and the date of counting was on 04.06.2024. The fourth respondent was assigned with the work to assist the Assistant Returning Officer, for 117 Kavundampalayam Constituency, who was the third respondent in W.P.No.29844 of 2023. This was followed by Special Summary Revision of Electoral Roll from 29.10.2024 and the date of Final publication of Electoral Roll for 117 Kavundampalayam Assembly Constituency was on 06.01.2025. In this regard, special campaign was conducted on 16.11.2024 and 17.11.2024 and again on 23.11.2024 and on 24.11.2024. The 4th respondent had the

responsibility of inspecting the polling stations, arranging polling materials, beside securing and arranging materials for counting center. Besides, securing EVM machines and ensure its safety at strong room was also taken care of by him.

(iv) Besides the above Election works, the 4th respondent was

engaged is conducting 45 camps under the “MAKKALUDEN MUDALVAR” scheme during the period from 18.12.2023 to 05.01.2024 in phase I and from 26.07.2024 to 28.08.2024 in phase II. In the meantime, annual settlement of

Village and Taluk account for Fasli year 1433- “Jamabandhi” was conducted by the 3rd respondent, who is the Jamabandhi Officer for 29 villages in the 4th respondent’s jurisdiction of Coimbatore North Taluk. There was also 24 hour camp, which had to be arranged and conducted in 29 villages of this Taluk to implement the “Ungalai Thedi Ungal Ooril” a special scheme. Amid the above works, the 4th respondent issued notices mentioned above to conduct enquiry. Both the parties produced documents which are verified with the available Revenue Records which took some time. The delay is neither willful nor wanton.

(v) Several writ petitions were filed against the District Administration

in which the 4th respondent was arrayed as one of the respondents. In this regard, counter affidavits were filed before this Court in respect of 6 cases.

(vi) Written instructions and status reports have also been submitted

by the 4th respondent before this Court in respect of 28 cases during the his tenure. The 4th respondent has highest regard and much respect this Court and there is no willful disobedience in complying with the directions issued at any point of time.

(vii) In the above circumstances, the 4th respondents was transferred

and relieved in the Afternoon of 10.02.2025 and the new Tahsildar assumed charge on 11.02.2025. Therefore, the delay caused is not willful and the delay may kindly be condoned.

11. The nut-shell of the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent

is as under:

(i) The 5th respondent herein Joined duty as the Village Administrative Officer, Chinnavedampatti Village on 08.07.2024 and hence, he is not fully aware of this case.

(ii) The fifth respondent tenders unconditional apology before this Court without any reservation whatsoever for any of the act of commission or omission on any part that may be considered or construed or likely to be construed as being an act, commission or omission, in violation of the order of this Court. The deponent herein has the highest regard and much respect for this Court and obeying the order passed by this Court in its letter and spirit.

(iii) After the fifth respondent joined duty as the Village Administrative Officer of Chinnavedampatty Village, he was not fully aware of the case, and the fifth respondent was attending the regular works assigned to him, besides the works relating organising special camps for Special Summary Revision during the months of October, 2024 and November 2024. After that, regarding the publication of Electoral Roll in January 2025, the fifth respondent attended distribution of Voters list to Block Level Officers, as the fifth respondent was under their supervision. Besides, after medical check-ups, the fifth respondent’s pregnancy was confirmed during the month of November 2024 and she was advised by the Doctor not to travel and take other precaution. In this regard, the fifth respondent had already submitted a medical certificate before this Court.

12. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

13. The counter affidavits individually filed by the

respondents/contemnors, are not satisfactory to this Court, as they are almost similarly worded. The fourth respondent-Tahsildar has to comply with the order under contempt. However, the respondents 1 to 3 being superior officers to the fourth respondent, have to monitor the proceedings and should have given instructions to the fourth respondent-Tahsildar, to comply with the order under contempt, in letter and spirit within the time stipulated by this Court. However, they failed to do the same. Since the respondents in W.P.No.29844 of 2023, have been shown as the respondents in the present Contempt Petition also, this Court gave a direction to the respondents in the Writ Petition to pass appropriate orders as directed in the said case. But however, the fifth respondent is Village Administrative Officer and she has nothing to do with the case and therefore, the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent is accepted and the contempt petition is hereby closed as against the fifth respondent alone.

14. It is not in dispute that the fourth respondent has not passed the

order, though the petitioner had made several representations before filing of the Writ Petition No.29844 of 2023. Even after filing the contempt petition, they failed to do so. As per the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, they have issued notice, but however, they have stated that the parties have not cooperated, but even from the adjudication proceedings submitted by the respondents, it is clear that they have issued notice and fixed the enquiry only on 13.02.2024. The proceedings show that both parties have appeared, however, the enquiry was postponed, in view of the absence of either one or other party, but the documents and the adjudication proceedings do not reflect the same. The proceedings show that the petitioner and the respondents invariably in almost all the enquiries, have appeared and signed in the proceedings. However, lastly, the enquiry was conducted on 23.10.2024. Even from the date of conclusion of the enquiry on 23.10.2024, the order was not passed within a period of two months. Although, the enquiry was concluded on 23.10.2024 itself and even assuming that the order ought to have been passed within two months on or before 22.12.2024, whereas, the order was passed only on 13.03.2025. Though the fourth respondent has given various reasons for not complying with the direction of this Court, but the same is not acceptable for the reason that when the order under contempt was received by the fourth respondent on 5.02.2024, the final order was passed only on 13.02.2025. Though they have adjourned the matter for enquiry on several occasions, the final enquiry was concluded on 23.10.2024 itself. Even afterwards also, the final order was not passed within two months from the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the reasons stated by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit, are not acceptable, as a Government official, he has to look after all the works entrusted to him. But that may not be the lame excuse for dragging the individual like the writ petitioner, from pillar to post endlessly on reasonable delay, and therefore, the delay is not meagre and the respondents, even after getting the order under contempt, dragged the petitioner herein from pillar to post and not passed the final order within the stipulated time.

15. On a reading of the counter affidavit filed by the respective

respondents/contemnors, the reason for non-compliance of the order under contempt, is within time, and the same is not acceptable to this Court. This Court finds that it is only wilful contempt. Though the fourth respondent in his counter affidavit tendered unconditional apology, this Court is of the view that the said apology is not from the bottom of the heart and it is only to escape from the contempt action. Hence, this Court is of the view that the fourth respondent has committed contempt of Court and shown wilful disobedience of the order under contempt.

16. As far as the third respondent-RDO is concerned, he is the

immediate superior of the fourth respondent-Tahsildar, who has also been added as a party in the writ proceedings and also in the contempt proceedings. Before this Court in this contempt proceedings, all the respondents are represented through the learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by learned Special Government Pleader. Therefore, the order under contempt is very well known to the respondents and the order under contempt seems to have been passed in the open Court itself. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the learned Special Government Pleader are aware of the order under contempt. But however, even assuming that the learned Special Government Pleader had not been served with the notice in this contempt petition, the Registry of this Court had addressed a copy of the order under contempt, to all the respondents.

17. Further, the third respondent has not shown any keen interest to

follow up the matter and as to whether the fourth respondent has initiated proceedings to comply with the order under contempt, in letter and spirit or not. Therefore, as immediate superior officer, the third respondent has also failed to comply with the order passed by this Court and the reasons stated by the third respondent in the counter affidavit, are not satisfactory to this Court. Therefore, third respondent has committed “contempt”.

18. Though the fourth respondent is directly involved in conducting

enquiry and to pass order, but however as per the fourth respondent’s superiors, respondents 1 to 3 are also liable to be proceeded with for contempt. Further, the respondents herein are also parties to the writ proceedings in W.P.No.29844 of 2023 and all of the respondents should comply with the order under contempt in coordination with each other and the respondents 1 to 3, in particular, have to monitor the day-to-day affairs of the fourth respondent-Tahsildar and the respondents 1 to 3 should ascertain as to whether their subordinates being respondent No.4, has complied with the order under contempt or not. It is the duty of the superior officers to monitor the proceedings initiated in compliance of the Court orders. This is not the first case, but in several cases, the Government officials are committing ‘contempt’ of Court and the parties are being dragged from pillar to post. Even after the parties approach the Court for their grievance and necessary orders were passed in the cases filed by them, the Government Departments/officials are not following the matter. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are superiors to the respondent No.4 and hence, the respondents 1 to 3 are also liable to be proceeded with for committing contempt of Court. The counter affidavits filed by the respective respondents are almost similar and ‘ditto’ in one aspect or the other, i.e. paragraphs 1 and 2 and the last paragraph are similar. It shows that the respondents 1 to 3 are also not following the Court orders being superior officers.

19. As the order under contempt has not been complied with, this

Court is of the view that the respondents 1 to 4 have to be punished.

20. The Government Pleader/Government Advocates/Additional Government Pleaders/Special Government Pleaders, etc., coupled with the respondents/contemnors, are trying to support the contemnors, in order to escape from the contempt action by showing some proceedings as if they have taken some efforts in complying with the order passed under contempt.

21. Further, on a reading of the materials, it is clear that the

respondents 1 to 4 herein have wilfully and wantonly disobeyed the order passed in the said Writ Petition. Therefore, this Court finds that the respondents 1 to 4 herein have committed ‘contempt of Court’. However, the fifth respondent-VAO is only the subordinate to the respondents 1 to 4. She has nothing to do with the contempt proceedings and hence, the Contempt Petition is to be closed as against the fifth respondent.

22. At the risk of repetition, it has to be stated as to whether the

fourth respondent-Tahsildar is meticulously following the order of this Court or not, has to be ascertained by the respondents 1 to 3 (being District Collector, DRO and RDO). The reasons stated in their individual counter affidavits, are not acceptable. In the counter affidavits, they have newly invented the reasons for not complying with the order under contempt, only to escape from contempt action. The respondents 1 to 4 are not following the order of this Court then and there within a reasonable / stipulated time and immediately. Even after the Court direction, they have not complied with the notice issued in this contempt petition. It is clear that the respondents 1 to 4 herein have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order under contempt. They cannot be absolved from the contempt proceedings.

23. In the above background, it is to be stated that the respondents,

being public servants, are entrusted with a serious responsibility to act fairly, expeditiously, and in accordance with the law. Once a public duty is cast upon them, particularly pursuant to the direction of a constitutional Court, they are bound to discharge such duty without fail. The plea that the respondents were engaged in other administrative works cannot be accepted as a lawful justification for non-compliance with the directions issued by this Court. Duties assigned to public servants must be executed promptly, and no official can claim immunity from compliance by citing administrative inconvenience. In the present case, despite the petitioner having submitted a representation highlighting his grievance, the respondents neither acted on it within a reasonable time nor provided any response, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by way of a writ petition. Upon hearing the matter and taking into account the rights of the petitioner, this Court had issued a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, within a stipulated time frame. However, it is evident from the record that, despite considerable time being afforded and despite clear judicial mandate, the respondents/contemnors failed to comply with the Court’s order. Even after issuance of statutory notice in these contempt proceedings, there has been no sincere effort to rectify the lapse. On the contrary, the contemnors have come forward belatedly with lame excuses, seeking condonation of delay without offering any genuine justification. This Court notes with concern that such conduct by public authorities is not an isolated incident. In numerous cases, it is seen that poor and aggrieved litigants, after approaching public authorities for redressal of genuine grievances, are forced to approach the constitutional Courts for directions. Even after judicial intervention, the concerned authorities, for reasons best known to them, either delay or altogether ignore compliance, compelling the litigants to resort to contempt proceedings for enforcement of their rights. Such repeated and consistent defiance by public officials is not only wrong but also challenges the fundamental principles of justice that the rule of law is meant to uphold. The confidence of the citizens in the justice delivery system rests upon the assurance that the orders of the Courts will be implemented promptly and effectively. Public service is not a privilege but a trust reposed in the officials by the people. Public servants are answerable not only to their immediate administrative superiors but ultimately to the law and the Constitution. Once an order is passed by this Court, it is binding, and compliance is not optional. Any deliberate failure to act amounts to wilful disobedience and constitutes contempt of Court. This Court, therefore, is constrained to record that the respondents 1 to 4/contemnors have wilfully and wantonly disobeyed the orders passed by this Court. The excuses offered are neither bona fide nor satisfactory. Their conduct amounts to a gross dereliction of duty and diminishes the integrity of the law. Being custodians of public trust, greater responsibility and sensitivity are expected of them. The rule of law cannot be overlooked due to administrative neglect. Based on the findings above, this Court concludes that the delay in addressing the petitioner’s representation is directly due to respondents 1 to 4. Their failure to act is not just a mistake or oversight; it is a serious and intentional disregard for the lawful orders issued by this Court. This behaviour is completely unacceptable and cannot be excused. Despite clear instructions from this Court, the contempt petition has not been dealt with, and the respondents have made no real effort to follow through. Even after the contempt petition was filed and notices were issued, the respondents have failed to take any meaningful action immediately. This is not a one-time occurrence; the Court has faced similar situations in other cases where, despite clear orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, authorities have ignored or delayed taking action. Such blatant disregard for Court orders not only undermines the authority of the Court but also damages the trust in the rule of law. The action of the respondents 1 to 4 shows a clear defiance of the Court’s orders, cannot be allowed, and they must be held accountable for their conduct, and they have to be punished.

24. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:

(i) The respondents 1 to 4 are hereby found guilty of the offence under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, as the respondents 1 to 4 have committed ‘civil contempt’ and are liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, and the fourth respondent is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The fourth respondent is also directed to pay an amount equivalent to his one month’s salary as compensation to the petitioner. In case of failure to pay the said compensation within the prescribed time, the fourth respondent shall undergo an additional simple imprisonment of ten days.

(ii) As regards respondents 1 to 3, each of the respondents 1 to 3

shall pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the petitioner. The total fine amount of Rs.30,000/- (i.e., Rs.10,000/- each) shall be recovered from their official salaries. The said compensation amounts shall be treated as fine amounts imposed for contempt and deducted directly from their official salaries by the concerned Government officials.

25. The above sentence of imprisonment shall stand suspended till the

appeal period is over. After the appeal period is over and if no appeal is filed, the Registry of this Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the fourth respondent/contemnor (Tahsildar, Coimbatore North Taluk Office, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore-641 018) to undergo the period of imprisonment as directed above.

26. With the above observations and directions, this Contempt Petition

is allowed as against the respondents 1 to 4 herein.

27. The Contempt Petition is closed as against the fifth respondent

herein.

28.04.2025

1. District Collector,

Office of the District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore – 641 018.

2. District Revenue Officer,

Office of the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore – 641 018.

3. Revenue Divisional Office,

Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer

(Coimbatore North),