Madras High Court holds former Coimbatore Collector, DRO and RDO guilty of contempt
The Madras High Court has found former Coimbatore Collector Kranthi Kumar Pati (now serving as Tamil Nadu Skill Development Corporation Managing Director), District Revenue Officer M. Sharmila and Revenue Divisional Officer P.K. Govindan guilty of contempt of court and directed them to pay ₹10,000 each from their salaries to the contempt petitioner.
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
Time of India
19 hours ago
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC denies bail to accused in Rs 411 crore 'Hamar-Lab' scam
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the first bail application of Shashank Chopda, an accused in the alleged Rs 411 crore 'Hamar-Lab' scam. The case, registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau (EOW/ACB), Raipur, involves charges under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 13(1)(A), 13(2), and 7(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, after hearing arguments from both sides, stated that economic offences are more serious than conventional crimes as they impact the entire economy and pose a grave threat to the country's financial health. The prosecution's case centres on alleged irregularities in the "Hamar-Lab" scheme, launched in 2021 by the Public Health and Family Welfare Department. The scheme aimed to procure essential medical equipment and machines through the Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Ltd (CGMSCL). The FIR alleged that officials from the Directorate of Health Services and CGMSCL placed disproportionate orders without proper budget evaluation or administrative approval, causing a loss of approximately Rs 411 crore to the state exchequer. Senior counsels Siddharth Mridul and Ajay Mishra, appearing for Chopda, argued that their client had no role in the alleged offence and was merely a bidder. They claimed that Chopda's company incurred a loss of Rs 351 crore and was being made a "scapegoat" to evade payment liabilities. They further contended that the EOW/ACB investigation was selective, as no govt officials were questioned or arrested until directed by the High Court. The defence also maintained that there was no risk of evidence tampering since all documents were submitted online and electronic devices, including mobile phones and computers, were already seized. Bail was sought on grounds of parity, citing a Supreme Court stay on the arrest of co-accused Rajesh Gupta in the same case. Dr Sourabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General for the state, opposed the bail plea, stating that CGMSCL purchased reagents without following due procedures or assessing actual requirements. He alleged that the specifications for medical equipment were "tailor-made" to favour a particular company, resulting in substantial losses. Pande described Chopda as the "mastermind" behind the cartel who influenced govt officials. The Deputy Advocate General also informed the court that five other co-accused, including public servants and CGMSCL officials, were arrested. He expressed concern that if granted bail, Chopda might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The High Court observed that economic offences, involving deep-rooted conspiracies and significant losses to public funds, must be treated seriously. It cited Supreme Court judgments emphasising that such crimes impact the national economy and erode public confidence in the financial system. Chief Justice Sinha noted that while a chargesheet was filed against Chopda, the investigation against other accused persons, including govt officials, was ongoing. He stated that the applicant appeared to be a "direct beneficiary" of the crime and could not be equated with co-accused Rajesh Gupta. The court also highlighted that the equipment supplied by Chopda's firm involved "closed system" technology, which would necessitate future procurement of reagents exclusively from his company, potentially leading to a monopoly and depriving the public of access to pathological tests. The court concluded that granting bail at this stage would "embolden corrupt practices" and undermine public trust in the justice delivery system. Chopda, representing Mokshit Corporation, faces several specific allegations, including procuring EDTA tubes (used for blood sample collection) from Mokshit Corporation at an inflated price of Rs 2,352 per piece, while other institutions procured them for a maximum of Rs 8.50. This was later clarified as a typographical error, with the actual price being Rs 23.52 per piece. He is also accused of purchasing reagents worth Rs 300 crore to prevent the expiry of chemicals held by Mokshit Corporation and supplying CBC machines at Rs 17 lakh per unit—significantly higher than the market price of Rs 5 lakh—after Mokshit Corporation was declared L-1 in the tender process. Additionally, he is alleged to have conspired with other firms such as Recorders and Medicare Systems and Shri Sharda Industries to generate illicit profits.
Time of India
21 hours ago
- Time of India
Photojournalist dies after brutal Melbourne assault by released immigration detainee
Dominic O'Brien, a veteran photojournalist, has died after an alleged assault in Footscray. Lominja Friday Yokoju, the suspect, was arrested. Yokoju was initially charged with intentionally causing serious injury. Following O'Brien's death, police are reviewing the charges. The incident has sparked public and political criticism regarding immigration detainee releases. Maribyrnong Council plans to improve safety in Footscray. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The suspect The veteran photojournalist Dominic O' Brien Police investigation Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Veteran photojournalist Dominic O'Brien, 62, has died in hospital, six days after being allegedly assaulted in Footscray on Sunday, June 15. The incident occurred just before 10 am at the intersection of Nicholson and Paisley Streets in an outdoor shopping mall, where O'Brien was reportedly approached by 43‑year‑old Lominja Friday Yokoju Yokoju, a former immigration detainee on a bridging visa and part of the 'NZYQ cohort' released after a High Court ruling in late 2023, was arrested at the scene. He was initially charged with intentionally causing serious injury. Witnesses allege Yokoju struck and stomped on O'Brien's head during the O'Brien, a renowned photographer for major outlets including The Age , The Australian, Getty Images, AAP, and Reuters, was a well‑respected figure in photojournalism and known for his work with Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. Colleagues described him as a 'talented storyteller' who embraced both analogue and digital photography O'Brien's death on Saturday morning, June 21, police confirmed they are reviewing the existing charges and may upgrade them pending the outcome of the post‑ remains in custody and is scheduled to face the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on October 20, 2025, for a committal incident has led to widespread public and political backlash. Figures such as Andrew Hastie and Brad Battin have criticized the government's handling of immigration detainee releases, while the Maribyrnong Council has pledged to bolster safety in Footscray.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Police can't barge into houses of history-sheeters under guise of surveillance: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the police have no right to knock on the doors of suspected persons or history-sheeters or 'barge' into their houses at night under the guise of surveillance. The ruling by Justice V.G. Arun came on a plea by a man accused of threatening police officers from discharging their duties when they asked him to come out of his house late at night as part of night check on rowdy history sheeters. Allowing the plea, the court quashed the FIR against the man and all further proceedings in connection with it, saying that 'under the guise of surveillance, the police cannot knock on the doors or barge into the houses of history sheeters'. The court said that police officers should understand that the concept of home 'transcends its physical manifestation as a dwelling and encompasses a rich tapestry of existential, emotional and social dimensions'. 'In other words, every man's house is his castle or temple, the sanctity of which cannot be vilified by knocking on the door at odd hours. A person's right to life encompasses the right to live with dignity and dignity is non-negotiable,' it said. The court further said that under the Kerala Police Manual only 'informal watching' of history sheeters and 'close watch' over those leading criminal existence were permitted. 'Undoubtedly, neither of those expressions permit domicile visits at night,' it added. It also pointed out that under section 39 of the Kerala Police Act all persons are bound to comply with the 'lawful directions' of a police officer for discharge of his functions. 'Knocking on the doors of a history sheeter at midnight and demanding him to come out of the house cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as a lawful direction,' the court said. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence of threatening a police officer to obstruct him from discharging his duties under the Kerala Police Act for refusing to abide by the direction to come out of the house at night, the court added. 'If, as alleged, the petitioner had used derogatory language or threatened the police during the course of such refusal, his action may invite some other offence, but definitely not the offence he is presently charged with,' it said. The petitioner had claimed that he was implicated in the case to divert the enquiry ordered by the High Court into his complaint alleging police harassment. The police had claimed that as part of their night check duty on rowdy history sheeters, officers had gone to ascertain if the petitioner was at home. However, when he was asked to open the door of his home, he refused to do so and also abused and intimidated the officer, it had alleged.
