Madras High Court holds former Coimbatore Collector, DRO and RDO guilty of contempt
Justice P. Velmurugan also held Coimbatore North Tahsildar Manivel guilty of contempt and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment besides paying an amount equivalent to his monthly salary as compensation to the petitioner. The sentence was, however, suspended for the limitation period of 30 days when an appeal could be filed.
The judge purged Village Administrative Officer Yamuna alone from the contempt proceedings initiated by 74-year-old senior citizen John Chandy in 2024 for having not complied with the orders passed by the court on November 8, 2023 to consider the petitioner's plea to remove illegal entries from the 'patta' related to his immovable property located at Chinnavedampatti village.
In his counter affidavit to the contempt plea, Mr. Pati told the court that he got transferred from the post of Coimbatore Collector in February 2025 and that he tenders unconditional apology to the court for not having complied with the order passed by the court in 2023 to conduct an inquiry with respect to the petitioner's plea and dispose it of within two months.
However, observing that the counter affidavit was not satisfactory, the judge held that Mr. Pati, Ms. Sharmila and Mr. Govindan, being superior officers, had failed to ensure that tahsildar Manivel complied with the court orders within the stipulated time. 'It is clear that the respondents one to four have deliberately disobeyed the order under contempt. They cannot be absolved,' the judge concluded.
Three more Tahsildars sentenced
Allowing yet another contempt of court petition filed by P. Shankar in 2024, Justice Velmurugan found Chengalpattu Tahsildar Venkataraman guilty of having wilfully not obeyed an order passed by the court on February 28, 2024 to consider the petitioner's request for grant of patta. The judge sentenced the Tahsildar for one month of simple imprisonment.
Further, the Tahsildar was directed to pay a compensation of ₹25,000 from his salary to the petitioner failing which he would have undergo 10 more days of simple imprisonment. The judge, however, suspended the sentence for the limitation period of 30 days provided under the Contempt of Courts Act for filing an appeal against the conviction before a Division Bench of the High Court.
Further, dealing with a third contempt plea filed by G. Murugathal, the judge sentenced Coimbatore Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Shri Malathi, Madukkarai Tahsildar A. Sathyan and Vellalur Village Administrative Officer to one month of simple imprisonment and directed them too to pay a compensation of ₹25,000 each to the petitioner, or in default, undergo 10 more days of imprisonment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
High Court verdict on batch of petitions filed in 2006 Mumbai train blasts today
More than 19 years after the Mumbai train bombings on July 11, 2006, the Bombay High Court is scheduled to pass the judgement on 11 appeals filed by the state as well as the convicts in the case on July 11, 2006, major explosions at seven locations on Mumbai's suburban rail network in a span of 11 minutes claimed 189 lives and injured 827 13 accused were arrested, 15 others were declared wanted, some allegedly in Pakistan. The Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) invoked the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), filing the chargesheet in November 2006. In 2015, the trial court convicted 12 accused, five of whom were sentenced to death, while the remaining seven were sentenced to life per the law, the state government then filed a petition in the High Court seeking confirmation of the death sentences. The accused also filed appeals challenging their convictions and the state had filed for confirmation of death sentences in 2015, the appeals were filed between 2019 and spite of the appeals being filed, they remained unheard of for a long time as the evidence was voluminous and one division bench of the High Court had to dedicatedly hear only this the appeals came up before many benches but could not be heard. Finally, one of the convicts in the case, Ehtesham siddiqui, filed a plea seeking expeditious hearing of the that, a special bench was constituted which heard the appeals for almost six months and wrote the judgements for the last six months.- Ends IN THIS STORY#Mumbai
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
HC seeks action report as 24 parole jumpers remain absconding in CG
Raipur: As of May 5, 2025, two out of 26 accused released on parole were arrested, leaving 24 at large, according to information from the five Circle Jails in Chhattisgarh. Similarly, information from seven districts indicated that out of 15 accused released on short-term bail as of May 5, 2025, none were arrested despite police efforts. In an affidavit submitted to the Chhattisgarh High Court, police officials informed they are making sincere efforts to arrest the remaining accused. The High Court is closely monitoring the status of prisoners who jumped bail or parole and are currently absconding. During a recent hearing, the court noted an affidavit filed by the Director General of Police (DGP), Chhattisgarh, detailing efforts to apprehend these individuals. The affidavit stated that the Head of Police Force is daily monitoring the status of accused persons who were released on short-term bail or parole but have not surrendered. Necessary instructions have been issued to all Range Inspector Generals of Police, including Rail, and the Superintendents of Police in various districts. These districts include Raipur, Mahasamund, Gariaband, Durg, Bemetara, Balod, Bilaspur, Janjgir-Champa, Korba, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Raigarh, Sakti, Surguja, Jashpur, Surajpur, Balrampur, Jagdalpur, Kondagaon, and Dantewada. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Libas Purple Days Sale Libas Undo They have been directed to take measures for arresting the remaining absconders. A fresh instruction was issued by the Police Headquarter, Chhattisgarh, on June 9, 2025, reiterating the directive to all authorities to take necessary steps for the arrests and submit information by July 14, 2025, along with a list of absconding accused. The High Court has scheduled the next hearing for Sept 15, by which date the Director General (Prisons), Chhattisgarh, has been asked to file an affidavit providing the current status. In March, 2025, High Court had directed the Director General of Police (DGP to file an affidavit detailing the arrest status of 46 prisoners who were absconding after being released on short-term bail and parole. The affidavit revealed that out of an initial 83 absconding accused, 63 were still at large as of Jan 29, 2025. The court had previously directed the Registrar (Judicial) to register a separate PIL concerning the efforts made by police authorities to apprehend these individuals. The new DGP, who assumed office in Feb 2025, succeeding Ashok Juneja, had stated in the affidavit that immediate action was taken to comply with the court's directives. On Feb 4, 2025, a special drive was launched, and instructions were re-issued to all Range Inspector Generals of Police (including Rail) and Superintendents of Police in districts such as Raipur, Mahasamund, Gariaband, Durg, Bemetara, Balod, Bilaspur, Janjgir-Champa, Korba, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Raigarh, Sakti, Surguja, Jashpur, Surajpur, Balrampur, Jagdalpur, Kondagaon, Dantewada, and Bijapur. These officials were directed to arrest the absconding accused and produce them before the concerned trial courts. The DGP's affidavit further stated that daily monitoring of the arrests of these absconding prisoners is being carried out. As per information received from seven districts, three accused from Raipur, Bemetara, and Dantewada, who were absconding after short-term bail, have been arrested and produced before the trial courts. Sixteen such accused remain at large.
India Today
12 hours ago
- India Today
ED not a super cop or drone to probe everything at will: High Court
The Madras High Court has observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot act at will, emphasising it was neither a "super cop" with infinite investigative powers nor a "loitering munition" capable of arbitrarily attacking financial institutions.A division bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan made these strong remarks while hearing a petition from RKM Powergen Private Ltd, a Chennai-based company. The firm had challenged the ED's freezing of its fixed deposits worth Rs 901 crore in a money laundering probe agency's action came after an FIR was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2014 over the allocation of coal blocks for a power plant in Chhattisgarh. However, in 2017, the CBI filed a closure, stating that no wrongdoing had been found in the allocation process. But, a special CBI court was not satisfied with the closure report and asked for further investigation. In 2023, the CBI filed a supplementary final report, which found there were sufficient incriminating materials warranting prosecution under sections of the the-then Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption this, the ED conducted searches in the premises of directors and holding companies associated with RKMP. On January 31 this year, an order was passed wherein the fixed deposit to the tune of Rs 901 crore was frozen by the ED. The company challenged the said order and the court set it note of these developments, the Madras High Court said that under Section 66(2) of PMLA, if the ED discovered violations of other provisions of law, it cannot assume the role of investigating those offences too. If the ED finds other types of legal breaches, it should inform the appropriate agency authorised to handle those matters, the court observed."It is to inform the appropriate agency, which is empowered by law to investigate that offence. If that agency, on the intimation of the ED, commences an investigation and registers a complaint, then certainly the ED can investigate into those aspects also, provided there are proceeds of crime," the bench said."In case, the investigating agency does not find any case with respect to the aspects pointed out by the ED, then the ED cannot proceed with the investigation and assume powers. The essential ingredient for the ED to seize jurisdiction is the presence of a predicate offence. It is like a limpet mine attached to a ship. If there is no ship, the limpet cannot work. The ship is the predicate offence and 'proceeds of crime'. The ED is not a loitering munition or drone to attack at will on any criminal activity," it court also noted that no separate complaint had been filed in relation to the supposed new offences the ED pointed to. "The ED is not a super cop to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice," it added."There should be a 'criminal activity' which attracts the schedule to PMLA, and on account of such criminal activity, there should have been proceeds of crime," the bench said.- Ends(with inputs from PTI)Must Watch IN THIS STORY#Chennai
