Case Note & Summary
The contempt petition was filed by G. Sampanki, a Junior Engineer Grade-I, against Dr. J. Radhakrishnan (Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO), Mrs. M. Ambiga (Chief Engineer, Personnel), and Mr. G. Ashok Raj (Superintending Engineer) for alleged wilful disobedience of the High Court's order dated 14.07.2025 in W.P.No.25416 of 2025. The petitioner sought punishment of the respondents under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act. During the hearing, the respondents' standing counsel submitted that the court's directions had been complied with and a copy of the compliance order was provided to the petitioner's counsel. The court recorded this submission and closed the contempt petition, observing that if the petitioner had any grievance against the final order passed by the respondents, he was at liberty to challenge the same. The judgment was delivered by Justice C. Kumarappan on 22-01-2026.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Section 11 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Compliance - The contempt petition alleged wilful disobedience of the court's order dated 14.07.2025 in W.P.No.25416 of 2025. The respondents' counsel submitted that the directions had been complied with and a copy of the order was circulated to the petitioner's counsel. Recording the submission, the court closed the contempt petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final order if aggrieved. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the order dated 14.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.25416 of 2025.
Final Decision
Contempt petition closed recording compliance. Petitioner granted liberty to challenge the final order if aggrieved.
Law Points
- Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971
- Section 11
- Wilful Disobedience
- Compliance
- Closure of Contempt Petition
Case Details
Mr. M.R. Jothimanian (for petitioner), Mr. C. Manoharan (Standing Counsel for respondents)
Dr. J. Radhakrishnan, IAS, Mrs. M. Ambiga, Mr. G. Ashok Raj
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petition for alleged wilful disobedience of court order.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought punishment of respondents for disobeying the order dated 14.07.2025 in W.P.No.25416 of 2025.
Filing Reason
Alleged non-compliance with the court's directions in the earlier writ petition.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 14.07.2025 in W.P.No.25416 of 2025.
Issues
Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the order dated 14.07.2025 in W.P.No.25416 of 2025.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondents' counsel submitted that the directions had been complied with and a copy of the order was circulated to the petitioner's counsel.
Ratio Decidendi
When the respondents comply with the court's directions and the same is recorded, the contempt petition is closed. However, the petitioner retains the right to challenge the final order if aggrieved.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the directions of this Court has been complied with and a copy of the order has also been circulated to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Recording the above submission of the learned Standing Counsel, this Contempt Petition is closed. However, if the petitioner has got any grievance against the final order passed by the respondents, he is at liberty to challenge the same.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed W.P.No.25416 of 2025, which was disposed of on 14.07.2025 with directions. Alleging non-compliance, the petitioner filed the present contempt petition (CONT P No. 24 of 2026) on an unspecified date. The court heard the matter on 22.01.2026 and closed the petition upon submission of compliance.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 11
