Disposed¶26

M.Ramanathan, v. Mr. Radhakrishnan and another

Madras HC6 Nov 2025CONT P/1717/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition closed pending writ appeal; TNEB Chairman Radhakrishnan and Chief Engineer (Personnel) Ambika as contemnors/respondents; non-compliance of common order W.P.No.20366 of 2010 dated 21.12.2003; writ appeals W.A.Nos.2723 & 2724 of 2025 against W.P.Nos.20358, 20362 to 20366 of 2010; Division Bench status quo order; liberty reserved to petitioner to renew contempt subject to appeal outcome; no costs; High Court of Judicature at Madras; Justice K. Surender; decision date 06-11-2025; counsel S.N.Ravichandran (petitioner), R.Nikkhilesh Athav / K.Raj Kumar Standing Counsel (respondents).

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition closed without adjudication; petitioner given liberty to proceed for contempt subject to the outcome of W.A.Nos.2723 & 2724 of 2025; no costs. ¶26

M.Ramanathan, Vs Mr. Radhakrishnan and another — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CONT P No.1717 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶6

CONT P No.1717 of 2025

M.Ramanathan

Petitioner(s)

Radhakrishnan

¶11

The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

¶12

800, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

¶13

Ambika

¶14

The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

¶15

Contemnor(s)

¶16

PRAYER:

¶17

This Contempt Petition is filed to punish the respondents for willful disobedience and non-compliance of the common order passed in W.P.No.20366 of 2010 dated 21.12.2003.

¶18

For Petitioner(s): M/s.S.N.Ravichandran

¶19

For Contemnor(s): Mr.R.Nikkhilesh Athav for Mr.K.Raj Kumar, Standing Counsel for R1 & R2

¶20

1/5

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

CONT P No.1717 of 2025

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Contempt Petition is filed aggrieved over the non-compliance of the common order passed in W.P.No.20366 of 2010 dated 21.12.2003.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents have preferred W.A.Nos.2723 & 2724 of 2025, against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.20358, 20362 to 20366 of 2010 and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had directed to maintain status quo.

¶26

Since, the Writ Appeal is likely to take considerable time to reach its finality and in view of the status quo ordered by the Hon’ble Division Bench, this Contempt Petition is closed. Subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed for contempt if any situation arises. No costs.

¶27

K.SURENDER, J. 06-11-2025 (3/3)

¶28

jai Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶29

2/5

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

CONT P No.1717 of 2025

¶32

¶33