CHENNAI: Talking tough on the government officials failing to comply with the orders of the court within the stipulated time-frame, the Madras High Court has sentenced an IAS officer to one-month simple imprisonment in a civil contempt of court case.
The judge also ordered IAS officer Anshul Mishra to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 within three weeks, failing which he shall undergo a further period of 10 days of civil imprisonment. The court ordered the amount to be recovered from his salary.
However, the judge kept the order under suspension to enable him to file an appeal and ordered the Registry of the court to take steps for arresting him if he failed to prefer the appeal within 30 days. Justice P Velmurugan recently passed the orders after finding the officer guilty of contempt of court when he was serving as the member secretary of CMDA.
The contempt of court petition was filed by R Lalithambal and her brother K S Viswanathan seeking to punish the officer for wilful disobedience of the orders passed in 2023.
The matter pertains to reconveyance of 17 cents of land belonging to them at Koyambedu that was acquired by the housing board in 1983. However, the land was not utilised. They filed a petition in the court for reconveying the land. Based on the court’s order in 2003, 10.5 cents of land was returned.
They filed another petition in 2023 for reconveyance of 6.5 cents. The court directed the CMDA to consider their representation, issue notices and hold an enquiry within three months. They filed a contempt petition in 2024 which contended that the 2023 order was not complied with within the time-frame.
The CMDA member secretary submitted that a notice was issued on February 14, 2025, and an inquiry was held on February 21. Also, an order rejecting their request was made on February 28 as the land was required for widening the Nespakkam road.
It may be noted that the notice was issued after Mishra was transferred out of CMDA on February 9 and posted as Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board.
Citing the delay, the judge held that the disobedience of the court’s order is “wilful and wanton”.
“A stipulated time-frame was set by the court and despite a clear judicial mandate, the contemnor (member secretary) failed to comply with the court’s order; even after issuance of statutory notice in these contempt proceedings, there has been no sincere efforts to rectify the lapse. On the contrary, the contemnor has come forward belatedly with lame excuses,” he said in the order.
“Once an order is passed by this court, it is binding, and compliance is not optional. Any deliberate failure to act amounts to wilful disobedience and constitutes contempt of court,” the judge said.