Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

A.Pavunkumar vs Dr.P.K.Senthilkumar on 7 February, 2025

Author: C.Saravanan

Bench: C.Saravanan

                                                                                                Cont.p.No.2317 of 2022


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 07.02.2025

                                                          CORAM :

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

                                                Cont.P.No.2317 of 2022
                 1.A.Pavunkumar,
                   S/o.M.Annamalai

                 2.P.Chandrasekar,
                   S/o.R.Ponnurangam

                 3.P.Manojkumar,
                   S/o.S.Palanisamy

                 4.P.Ananthan,
                   S/o.M.Pandian                                                       ... Petitioners

                                                           Vs.

                 1.Dr.P.K.Senthilkumar, I.P.S.,
                   The Member Secretary,
                   Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
                   (TNUSRB),
                   Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
                   Panthean Road,
                   Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

                 2.Dr.C.Sylendra Babu, I.P.S.,
                   The Director General of Police,
                   Tamil Nadu,
                   Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
                   Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.                                   ... Respondents

                 1/7




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:34:38 am )
                                                                                         Cont.p.No.2317 of 2022


                 Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to

                 punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the Order of this Court dated

                 07.01.2022 made in W.P.No.10467 of 2021.


                                  For Petitioners     :
                                  For P1              : Ms.N.Kavitha Rameshwar
                                  For P2              : Mr.S.Jerald Lenin

                                  For Respondents :
                                  For R1          : Mr.D.Sowmidattan
                                  For R2          : Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari
                                                    Government Advocate


                                                             ORDER

Post facto, pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondents have now passed an Order dated 11.12.2024 bearing Ref.C.No.D1/4997/2020. The said Order has been passed pursuant to Order dated 28.11.2024.

2. The respondents have found the respective petitioners are ineligible to be selected as Sub Inspectors in response to the recruitment notification.

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:34:38 am ) Cont.p.No.2317 of 2022

3. The matter would require a detailed consideration. Therefore, this Contempt Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the Order dated 11.12.2024 in the manner known to law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

07.02.2025 Neutral Citation : Yes / No arb 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:34:38 am ) Cont.p.No.2317 of 2022 C.SARAVANAN, J.

arb Cont.P.No.2317 of 2022 07.02.2025 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:34:38 am ) Cont.p.No.2317 of 2022 Cont.P.No.2317 of 2022 C.SARAVANAN, J.

This case is listed under the caption “For Being Mentioned” at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a delay in making a challenge to the order, dated 11.12.2024 by about four months and he requests to modify the time prescribed. Since the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order dated 11.12.2024 and the delay is only marginal, the time for taking steps to challenge the order is extended till 17.06.2025.

3. Accordingly, the Paragraph No.3 in the order, dated 07.02.2025 in Cont.P.No.2317 of 2022 shall be substituted as follows:

“3. The matter would require a detailed consideration. Therefore, this Contempt Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 11.12.2024 in the manner know to law on or before 17.06.2025.” 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:34:38 am ) Cont.p.No.2317 of 2022

4. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction and issue fresh order copy to the parties.

04.07.2025 sn 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:34:38 am ) Cont.p.No.2317 of 2022 C.SARAVANAN, J.

Sn Cont.P.No.2317 of 2022 04.07.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:34:38 am )