R MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. COLLECTOR OF TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant contempt petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent, District Collector, Tiruvallur District punishing for willfully disobeying the order dated 20.07.2009 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3013 of 2009.

(2.) The Office has returned the papers with a note that the Petitioner must give the name of the District Collector against whom contempt proceeding needs to be initiated. The Office has also doubted the maintainability of the contempt petition on the ground of defective cause title. Hence, the record has been placed before us.

(3.) Mr.R. Muthukrishnan, Petitioner-in-Person strenuously challenged the office note and submitted that the same is illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. He submitted that in contempt proceeding Petitioner is not required under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to disclose the name of the person who committed contempt. There is no provision under the Rules of the Madras High Court regulating the contempt proceedings to present the contemnor by name. He further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in one case by the order dated 04.10.2001 directed the Registry not to entertain any contempt application unless the contemnor is specifically named. In the said order the Registry was directed to issue circular to that effect, but no such circular has been issued till date. Petitioner/Party-in-Person contended that this Contempt Petition can be presented against the authority without specifying the name of such authority who has committed contempt.