Dismissed¶¶28

Govindaraj, v. Rajendran

Madras HC2 Jun 2026CONT P(MD)/1391/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition dismissed — Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Cont.P.(MD)No.1391 of 2026 in W.P.(MD)No.19603 of 2017; Section 11, Contempt of Courts Act; willful violation of writ order dated 30.08.2023; encroachment on channel through patta lands; remedy is enforcement before District Collector, Sivagangai; contempt does not lie against unsuccessful writ petitioners; Govindaraj v. Rajendran and Sathaiya; coram G.R. Swaminathan and B. Pugelendhi; decided 02.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition will not lie against the respondents since their writ petition was not allowed. ¶¶27

Govindaraj, Vs Rajendran — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Cont.P.(MD)No.1391 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.06.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Cont.P(MD)No.1391 of 2026 in W.P(MD)No.19603 of 2017

Govindaraj

... Petitioner/

3^rd Respondent

Vs.

1.Rajendran, S/o. Muniyandi, Karaikulam, Indankulam, Sivagangai District.

¶12

2.Sathaiya, S/o. Tamilarasan, Karaikulam Village, Indankulam, Sivagangai District.

¶13

... Contemnors / Writ Petitioners

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

PRAYER:

¶17

Cont.P.(MD)No.1391 of 2026

¶18

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the contemnors for their deliberate disobedience and willful violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.19603 of 2017 dated 30.08.2023.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sukumar

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The respondents herein filed W.P(MD)No.19603 of 2017 challenging the proceedings issued by the District Collector, Sivagangai District. We declined to interfere with the order passed by the District Collector. However, we observed that the writ petitioners therein should not obstruct the channels passing through their patta lands. The petitioner herein was shown as the third respondent in the said writ petition. It was at his instance that the District Collector had issued the communication dated 13.07.2017.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

Cont.P.(MD)No.1391 of 2026

¶26

2.According to the petitioner herein, the respondents are

¶27

continuing to commit encroachment on the petition mentioned channel. If that be so, the petitioner's remedy is to go before the District Collector, Sivagangai, and seek enforcement of the order. Contempt Petition will not lie in such circumstances. Since the respondents' writ petition was not allowed, the contempt petition will not lie against them.

¶28