Madras High Court
J.Kasithangam vs Dr.M.Saikumar on 1 October, 2020
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
Contempt Petition No.1639 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.10.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Contempt Petition No.1639 of 2015
1. J.Kasithangam
2. J.Adhimoolam ... Petitioners
vs.
1. Dr.M.Saikumar
Chairman,
Tamil Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2. Manivannan,
Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Tamil Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
3. Natarajan,
Superintending Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Generation &
Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle,
Dharmapuri. ... Respondents
Contempt Petition filed under Order 11 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, praying to punish the Respondents herein for willfully
disobeying the order of this Court in W.P.No.23101 of 2012, dated
09.09.2014.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.1 of 4
Contempt Petition No.1639 of 2015
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.Haroon,
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
ORDER
This Contempt Petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 09.09.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.No.23101 of 2012.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it is represented by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that, the order under contempt was challenged in W.A.No.2062 of 2019 and the same was decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.07.2019.
3. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners, Contempt will not lie against the order passed in the Writ Petition.
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 by the Apex Court. 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 http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.2 of 4 Contempt Petition No.1639 of 2015 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.
5. Thus, in view of the principle of Doctrine of Merger discussed above, the present Contempt Petition cannot be adjudicated and hence, it is closed. However, if the Petitioners are aggrieved, it is open to them to work out their remedy in the manner known to law.
01.10.2020
Index : Yes/No
(aeb/jas)
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.3 of 4
Contempt Petition No.1639 of 2015
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
(aeb/jas)
Order in
Contempt Petition No.1639 of 2015
01.10.2020
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.4 of 4