IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P. No.4591 of 2008 A.Palaniappan .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. The Advocate General of Tamil Nadu High Court, Chennai-600 104. 2. K.Anbanathan 3. H.Mohammed Sulthan 4. P.Natesan 5. A.Srinivasan .. Respondents. Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the record in Contempt Petition No.51 of 2005 on the file of 1st respondent herein and quash the order dated 31.08.2006 made in Contempt Petition No.51 of 2005 and further direct the learned Advocate General, High Court, Madras, the 1st respondent herein to grant consent for the initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents 2 to 5. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugesan For R1 : Mr.P.Muthukumar Govt. Advocate For R2 to R4 : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran For R5 : Mr.A.K.Kumaraswamy O R D E R The petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order passed by learned Advocate General declining permission to the petitioner to initiate criminal contempt against respondents 2 to 4. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a trade union leader and had filed a suit, against show cause notice issued by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, in which, respondents 1 to 3 were employees as Officers. 3. The total number of suits filed by the petitioner are ten, against the different show cause notices issued to him. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the respondents herein challenged the maintainability of the suits on the ground that as the show cause notices related to service matters, therefore, dispute can be adjudicated only under the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that oral undertaking given in the Court was not complied with, which had to be recorded in writing. That serious allegations were levelled against the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam, which were contemptuous in nature. Therefore, the respondents 2 to 4 were liable to be prosecuted for criminal contempt. Allegations, which according to the petitioner, constitute criminal contempt read as under: "The petitioners submit whenever an application is filed for advancing the hearing of the above said applications by the respondent, the District Munsif without hearing the petitioners' side, is allowing the petition and take all the 10 suits for enquiry. The respondent filed not only the present suit but also filed another 9 suits for the very same nature and all the suits are pending before District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam. All the suits are based on industrial dispute. The respondent is residing at Gobichettipalayam. The counsel appearing for the respondent is residing just oppostite to the quarters of the District Munsif of Gobichettipalayam. Taking advantage of the side fact, whenever an application is filed on behalf of the respondent, the District Munsif is always favouring for the respondent." 5. It is not in dispute that application for transfer was dismissed. The Court, before whom the case was pending, did not find the allegations to be contemptuous in nature. As no proceeding was initiated by the Court against whom allegations were made, learned Advocate General also did not find that the allegations of the petitioner constitute criminal contempt, therefore, did not permit the petitioner to approach this Court for prosecuting the respondents by filing criminal contempt petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged that the imugned order cannot be sustained, by vehemently contending that as allegations referred to above cause aspersion on the judicial functioning of the Court, therefore, it constitutes criminal contempt. The learned Advocate General was therefore not right in rejecting the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that learned Advocate General wrongly recorded that there were no specific allegations, though, in the pleadings, it was mentioned, that the petitioner was staying in opposite house of the Judge, therefore, notices were issued in the suit filed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the averments were specific, against learned Judge in transfer applications, which constitute criminal contempt. 7. This contention cannot be accepted, as learned Advocate General of Tamil Nadu recorded that averments made in the petition were merely apprehension shown for transfer of the case and no specific allegation was made to constitute it as contempt of Court. 8. In any case, it is now well settled law that question of contempt is between condemner and Court. Once the Court does not feel allegations to be contemptuous in nature, it is not open to the party to seek to proceed under Contempt of Court, against persons. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order, refusing permission to file criminal contempt. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. To The Advocate General of Tamil Nadu High Court, Chennai-600 104. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Copy to 1. The District Judge Erode (For information) 2. The District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District (For information) 1 cc to Mr.M.V. Venkateshan, Advocate, sr. 2614 1 cc to Mr.T. Chandrasekaran, Advocate, Sr. 2870 W.P. No. 4591 of 2008 SGL (CO) kk 2/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/