Madras High Court sentences IAS officer to one-month easy imprisonment in contempt case-OxBig News Network

Anshul Mishra. File
| Photo Credit: Ok. Ananthan

The Madras High Court has discovered Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Anshul Mishra responsible of contempt of court docket and directed him to bear easy imprisonment for one month. The court docket, nonetheless, suspended the sentence till he might desire an enchantment earlier than a Division Bench of the court docket.

Justice P. Velmurugan directed the Madras High Court Registry to take steps for securing the custody of the previous Chennai Metropoligan Development Authority (CMDA) Member Secretary and make him bear the sentence if he doesn’t desire the enchantment throughout the limitation interval of 30 days.

The decide additionally directed Mr. Mishra to pay a compensation of ₹25,000 to aged siblings R. Lalithambal and Ok.S. Viswananthan, who had been struggling for years to retrieve their worthwhile immovable property, which was acquired for a public objective however reportedly not used for a similar.

Making it clear that the compensation have to be paid from the private funds of the IAS officer and never from public funds, the decide ordered that the State authorities deduct the quantity from his month-to-month wage. In default, the officer was ordered to bear easy imprisonment for one more 10 days.

Displeased with the federal government authorities having taken two years to adjust to a court docket order, which insisted that they take a choice inside two months, Justice Velmurugan wrote: “This court notes with concern that such conduct by public authorities is not an isolated incident.”

He went on to state: “In numerous cases, it is seen that poor and aggrieved litigants, after approaching public authorities for redressal of genuine grievances, are forced to approach the constitutional courts for directions. Even after judicial intervention, the concerned authorities, for reasons best known to them, either delay or altogether ignore compliance, compelling the litigants to resort to contempt proceedings for enforcement of their rights.”

The decide stated, such repeated and constant defiance by public officers was not solely mistaken but in addition challenges the elemental ideas of justice and the necessity to uphold the rule of regulation.

“The confidence of the citizens in the justice delivery system rests upon the assurance that the orders of the courts will be implemented promptly and effectively. Public service is not a privilege but a trust reposed in the officials by the people. Public servants are answerable not only to their immediate administrative superiors but ultimately to the law and the Constitution,” he noticed.

Once an order will get handed by a court docket of regulation, it could be binding upon the chief and its compliance was not optionally available. “Any deliberate failure to act amounts to wilful disobedience and constitutes contempt of court. This court, therefore, is constrained to record that the respondent/contemnor has wilfully and wantonly disobeyed the orders passed by this court. The excuses offered are neither bona fide nor satisfactory,” the decide added.

The authorized battle

According to the siblings, who had filed the current contempt plea, 17 cents of their land abutting Nesapakkam Road in Chennai was acquired in 1983 for developing Tamil Nadu Housing Board tenements. However, when the land was not utilised for lengthy, the petitioners initiated a authorized battle in search of reconveyance of the property.

Pursuant to a writ petition filed in 2003, adopted by contempt proceedings, about 10.5 cents of the land was reconveyed to them however the remainder of 6.5 cents was retained for the aim of widening the Nesapakkam Road. Again, the siblings kickstarted a second spherical of litigation to get again the remaining property.

Disposing of their second writ petition on November 22, 2023, Justice Velmurugan had directed the CMDA Member Secretary to think about the couple’s plea and move acceptable orders inside two months. However, for the reason that order was not complied with, the siblings filed the current contempt plea in August 2024.

The petitioners’ counsel advised the court docket the 2023 order was not complied with till Mr. Mishra was transferred from CMDA to the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board in February 2025. His successor in CMDA rejected the petitioners’ plea, for reconveyance, on February 28, 2025.