Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 80281 (MAD)

G.Kannayiram v. Govindaraj

CONT P/50/2022 · 2025-09-24

Mohammed Shaffiq, S M Subramaniam

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:MHC:2372 2025:MHC:2372 CONT P No. 50 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-09-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ CONT P No. 50 of 2022 G.Kannayiram Petitioner(s) Vs 1.Mr.Govindaraj Tahsildar, Chetpet, Chetpet Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. 2.Mrs.S.Savitha Block Development Officer West Arni Panchayat Union Panchayat Union Office Arni, Thiruvannamalai District. Contemnor(s) For Petitioner(s): For Contemnor(s): Mr.N.Elumalai Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan AGP Page No.1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT P No. 50 of 2022 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present contempt petition has been instituted to punish the respondent for their willful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 10.04.2018 in WP No.367 of 2018. 2. The petitioner has earlier filed a Contempt Petition in CONT.P.No.2440 of 2018 against the very same writ order and the contempt petition was closed by this Court on 02.04.2019. Again after a lapse of two years, the present contempt petition has been field on 10 th December, 2021. The present contempt petition is not maintainable, since the 1 st contempt petition has already been closed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the realm has not been maintained thereafter. Page No.2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT P No. 50 of 2022 4. Such a contention is unacceptable, if at all new cause arouse, the litigant has to work out their remedy in the manner known to law. Contrarily they cannot file contempt petition after contempt petition for the purpose punishing the respondents, which is not maintainable. More so, in the present case the contempt petitioner is bared by the limitation under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5. For all these reasons, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. No costs. (S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.) 24-09-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No Jeni Page No.3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT P No. 50 of 2022 To 1.The Tahsildar, Chetpet, Chetpet Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. 2.The Block Development Officer, West Arni Panchayat Union, Panchayat Union Office, Arni, Thiruvannamalai District. Page No.4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT P No. 50 of 2022 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J. Jeni CONT P No. 50 of 2022 24-09-2025 Page No.5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis