Madras High Court
Chandran vs G.Jayaprakesh on 5 April, 2016
Bench: S.Manikumar, C.T.Selvam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Contempt Appeal (MD) Nos.1 of 2016 and 2 of 2016
and C.M.P.(MD) Nos.3226 and 3227 of 2016
1.Chandran
The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Distribution, TANGEDCO,
Tiruchendur ? 628 215.
2.Thiyagarajan,
The Superintending Engineer,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO, Tuticorin. ... Appellants/Contemptors
in both petitions
Vs.
G.Jayaprakesh ... Respondent/Petitioner
in both petitions
COMMON PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 19(1) of Contempt of
Courts Act, praying to set aside the order dated 22.03.2016 passed in
Contempt Petition (MD) Nos.374 and 375 of 2016 in C.R.P. (MD) Nos.1716 and
1717 of 2011 respectively on the file of this Court.
!For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy
^For Respondent : Mr.S.Nedumaran
:COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that interim orders passed in M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 1 of 2015 in contempt petition Nos.374 and 375 of 2016 in C.R.P.(MD) Nos.1716 and 1717 of 2011 dated 22.03.2016, where initially challenged only by filing Letters Patent Appeals under Section 15 of the Letters Patent Act, but, at the instance of the Registry, the appeals were converted into contempt appeal Nos.1 and 2 of 2016 and thus listed before this Court.
2.We are not inclined to accept the said plea for the reason that the Registry is neither mender nor the maker. If the Registry had misdirected the learned counsel for the appellants, it is always open to the Court to request the Registry, that the matter be listed before this Court, for maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal. Having accepted the Registry and converted the appeals as one under Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act, we are not inclined to entertain the contempt appeals, as they are not maintainable, in the light of the decisions in Arumuganainar, S v. M/s.Jeenath Roadways, Chennai reported in (2005) 4 M.L.J. 393.
3.Yet another reason for dismissal of the present applications, as not maintainable is that the very contempt petitions (MD) Nos.374 and 375 of 2016 have been closed on 28.03.2016. What is challenged before us is only the interim orders, in the pending contempt petitions. Interim orders have been merged in the orders passed in the main contempt petition. When the main case is disposed of, appeal against interim orders do not subsist and these Appeals have to be dismissed.
4.In the light of the above discussions on maintainability, the Contempt Appeals are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.
.