Madras High Court
D.Ubendhiran vs Dr.K.Sekar on 18 September, 2020
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
Contempt Petition Nos.1248, 1249 & 1250 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.09.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Contempt Petition Nos.1248, 1249 & 1250 of 2016
Cont.P.No.1248 of 2016:
D.Ubendhiran ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Dr.K.Sekar,
Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2. Dr.K.Jagadeeshan,
Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 18.
3. Dr.G.Paul Vasanthakumar,
Secretary,
Bishop Thorp College,
Diocesan Officer, Puthur,
Trichy – 620 017.
4. Dr.K.G.Senthilvasan,
Registrar,
The Bharathiar University,
Coimbatore – 46. ... Respondents
Contempt Petition filed under Order 11 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, praying to punish the Respondents for disobeying the common
order dated 30.04.2015, passed in W.P.No.10366 of 2004.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.1 of 6
Contempt Petition Nos.1248, 1249 & 1250 of 2016
Cont.P.No.1249 of 2016:
S.Vasudevan ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Dr.K.Sekar,
Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2. Dr.K.Jagadeeshan,
Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 18.
3. Dr.K.G.Senthilvasan,
Registrar,
The Bharathiar University,
Coimbatore – 46.
4. Dr.G.Paul Vasanthakumar,
Secretary,
Bishop Thorp College,
Ellis Nagar Post,
Dharapuram – 620 017. ... Respondents
Contempt Petition filed under Order 11 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, praying to punish the Respondents for disobeying the common
order dated 30.04.2015, passed in W.P.No.8989 of 2011.
Cont.P.No.1250 of 2016:
S.Chenniappan ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Dr.K.Sekar,
Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.2 of 6
Contempt Petition Nos.1248, 1249 & 1250 of 2016
2. Dr.K.G.Senthilvasan,
Registrar,
The Bharathiar University,
Coimbatore – 46.
3. Dr.G.Paul Vasanthakumar,
Bishop and Chairman,
Bishop Thorp College,
Dharapuram – 638 657.
Tirupur District. ... Respondents
Contempt Petition filed under Order 11 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, praying to punish the Respondents for disobeying the common
order dated 30.04.2015, passed in W.P.No.29772 of 2004.
*****
For Petitioner in all
Contempt Petitions : Mr.P.Premkumar
For Respondents in all : Ms.H.Mary Sowmi Rexi
Contempt Petitions
COMMON ORDER
These Contempt Petitions are filed alleging willful disobedience of the common order dated 30.04.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.No.10366 of 2004, W.P.No.8989 of 2011 and W.P.No.29772 of 2004, respectively.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.3 of 6 Contempt Petition Nos.1248, 1249 & 1250 of 2016
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents that, the orders under contempt are challenged in W.A.Nos.1216, 1217 and 1218 of 2016 and are disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.02.2020.
3. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, Contempt will not lie against the order dated 30.04.2015 passed in W.P.No.10366 of 2004, W.P.No.8989 of 2011 and W.P.No.29772 of 2004, respectively.
4. In the case of Kunhayammed vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2000 (6) SCC 359), the principle of Doctrine of Merger has been widely discussed. With reference to the three-Judge ruling in Kunhayammed case and yet another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dineshan, K.K. vs. R.K.Singh reported in (2014) 16 SCC 88, this Court is of the view that, once the order passed in a Writ Petition gets merged with the order of the Writ Appeal, the remedy available to the Petitioner is to file a Contempt in the Writ Appeal and not in the Writ Petition, unless and until the Apex Court specifically directs the High Court to decide the issue.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.4 of 6 Contempt Petition Nos.1248, 1249 & 1250 of 2016
5. Thus, in view of the principle of Doctrine of Merger discussed above, the present Contempt Petitions cannot be adjudicated and hence, they are closed. However, it is open to the Petitioners to work out their remedy in the manner known to law.
18.09.2020
Index : Yes/No
(aeb/jas)
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.5 of 6
Contempt Petition Nos.1248, 1249 & 1250 of 2016 S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
(aeb/jas) Common Order in Contempt Petition Nos.1248, 1249 & 1250 of 2016 18.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.6 of 6