K. MADALAIMUTHU AND ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 27-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. MADALAIMUTHU AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 27, 2007 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 129-Contempt petition-Alleging disobedience and disrespect 
C to orders passed by Supreme Court-Meanwhile petitioners promoted with 
consequential benefits and orders of the Court stated to have been fully 
complied with-Held, in view of unqualified and unconditional apology 
tendered by alleged contemnors, the contempt petition is disposed a/-
Contempt of Court. 
D 
Service Law-Tamil Nadu Registration Service-Promotion to the cadre 
of Additional Inspector General of Registration. 
Petitioners filed the contempt petition alleging disobedience and 
disrespect to the judgment and order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the Supreme 
E Court. It was also prayed that the order dated 25.7.2006 passed by the alleged 
contemnors promoting an officer junior to the petitioners be set aside and 
contemnors be directed to redetermine the seniority in terms of the judgment 
dated 4. 7.2006 and to promote the petitioners to the post of Additional Inspector 
General of Registration in the Tamil Nadu Registration Service. 
F 
Meanwhile the petitioners were promoted and the order dated 4.7.2006 
was stated to have been fully complied with. The alleged contemnors tendered 
unqualified and unconditional apology and stated that there was no intention 
to disobey the orders of the Court; and implementation of the orders was 
delayed only due to administrative and procedural delay. 
G 
Disposing of the contempt petition, the Court 
H 
HELD: The apology appears to be genuine. Since the respondents have 
purged the contempt, taking a lenient view of the matter and considering their 
age and future prospects, the Contempt petition is disposed of by accepting 
394 
. ' 
f 
K. MADALAIMUTHU v. ST ATE OFT AMIL NADU [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 395 
their unconditional apology tendered in the Court and in the affidavits. The A 
statement made at the Bar that the salary and other consequential benefits 
consequent upon the promotion shall be given to the petitioners in accordance 
with rules, is placed on record. (Paras 12 and 13( (398-B-CJ 
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (C) No. 208 of 
2006. 
B 
In 
Civil Appeal No. 2791-2793 of2002. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 24.12.2001 of the Madras High C 
Court in Writ Petition Nos. I 6806/98, 1548 & 1549 of 1999. 
K. Ramamurthy, B. Balaji and Satya Mitra Garg for the Petitioners. 
Soli J. Sorabjee, Altaf Ahmad, V.G. Pragasam, S. Va\linayagam and S. 
Prabhu Ramasubramanian for the Respondents. 
D 
P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, V. Vasudevan, Naresh Kumar, S. Ravishankar, 
R. Yamunah Nachiar, Vidushi Tandon for the lntervenors. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. I. We have heard Mr.K.Ramamoorthy, 
learned senior advocate for the petitioners and Mr.Soli J.Sorabjee and Mr.Altaf 
Ahmad, learned senior advocates for the respondents. 
E 
2. The above Contempt Petition was filed by Mr.K.Madalaimuthu and 
Mr.A.Arumuga Nainar against Mr.M.Devaraj, !AS and Mr.M.Muthusamy, IAS F 
to initiate contempt proceedings against them for having deliberately, wilfully 
disobeyed and disrespected the Judgment and Order dt.04.07.2006 passed by 
this Court in CA No.2791-2793/2002 and punish the respondent-contemnors 
for the said violation, disobedience and disrespect to the said Order of this 
Court. A further prayer was also made to set aside the Orders passed by the 
contemnors dated 25.07.2006 by which the junior of the petitioners had been G 
promoted to the cadre of Additional Inspector General of Registration and 
order dated 10.08.2006 of the first contemnor by which the said junior had 
been posted as Additional Registrar of Chits in the cadre of Additional 
Inspector of Registration in the existing vacancies. 
H 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
3. The third prayer is to direct the contemnors to re-determine the 
seniority in terms of the Judgment 04.07 .2006 passed by this Court in 
C.A.No.2791-2793/2002 and to promote the petitioners to the cadre of 
Additional Inspector General of Registration in the Tamil Nadu Registration 
Service. 
B 
4. On service of notice, both the respondents have appeared before us 
on the last occasion. 
5. The respondents have filed reply affidavit through Mr.M.Devaraj, 
l.A.S. explaining the delay in complying with the order of this Court. In para 
3, Mr.Devaraj has ten
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.