Madras High Court
C.S.Christopher vs Vivekanandan on 24 September, 2020
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
Contempt Petition Nos.2017 & 2018 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.09.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Contempt Petition Nos.2017 & 2018 of 2018
Cont.P.No.2017 of 2018:
C.S.Christopher ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Vivekanandan, I.A.S,
Principal Secretary / Commissioner,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Chennai – 25.
2. Sunil Paliwal, I.A.S,
Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
3. Muthu Balan,
Assistant Director (Administration),
O/o. The Director of Technical Education,
Chennai – 25. ... Respondents
Contempt Petition No.2017 of 2018 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.33539 of 2012,
dated 17.08.2017.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.1 of 5
Contempt Petition Nos.2017 & 2018 of 2018
Cont.P.No.2018 of 2018:-
K.Rajasekar ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Sunil Paliwal, I.A.S,
Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2. Vivekanandan, I.A.S,
Principal Secretary / Commissioner,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Chennai – 25.
3. Kamatchi,
Principal,
Central Polytechnic College,
Tharamani, Chennai – 113. ... Respondents
Contempt Petition No.2018 of 2018 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.15965 of 2011,
dated 17.08.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan
in both Contempt Petitions
For Respondents : Mrs.P.Kavitha
in both Contempt Petitions Government Advocate
*****
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.2 of 5
Contempt Petition Nos.2017 & 2018 of 2018
COMMON ORDER
These Contempt Petitions are filed alleging willful disobedience of the orders dated 17.08.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.No.33539 of 2012 and W.P.No.15965 of 2011, respectively.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it is represented by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents that, challenging the orders under contempt, Writ Appeals were filed in W.A.Nos.2696 and 2697 of 2018 and an order of interim stay was also granted.
3. In view of the submissions of the learned Government Advocate, Contempt will not lie against the orders passed in the Writ Petitions.
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.3 of 5 Contempt Petition Nos.2017 & 2018 of 2018 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 Petitions cannot be adjudicated and hence, they are closed. However, if the Petitioners are aggrieved, it is open to them to work out their remedy after the disposal of the Writ Appeals.
24.09.2020
Index : Yes/No
(aeb/jas)
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.4 of 5
Contempt Petition Nos.2017 & 2018 of 2018 S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
(aeb/jas) Common Order in Contempt Petition No.2017 & 2018 of 2018 24.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.5 of 5