Dismissed¶34

P.Kovilpitchai v. Akilandeswari

Madras HC23 Mar 2026CONT P(MD)/163/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of Court — wilful disobedience of writ direction — TNPDCL/TANGEDCO Superintending Engineer Akilandeswari — direction to consider representation dated 25.04.2025 and pass orders (order dated 29.08.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.23653 of 2025) — release of Rs.10,09,643/- per communication dated 31.01.2026 — petitioner claims higher amount — quantum grievance not sustainable in contempt — Section 11 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Article 215 Constitution — no wilful disobedience — petition closed with liberty, no costs — Madurai Bench of Madras High Court — Hemant Chandangoudar J. — 23.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition stands closed; liberty granted to the petitioner to agitate his rights before the appropriate forum; no costs. ¶34

P.Kovilpitchai Vs Akilandeswari — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition stands closed; liberty granted to the petitioner to agitate his rights before the appropriate forum; no costs.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent/contemnor committed wilful disobedience of this Court's order dated 29.08.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.23653 of 2025, warranting punishment for contempt. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

In view of the respondent's compliance, no case of wilful disobedience is made out.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The direction issued in the writ petition was only to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders, and the respondent complied with that direction by considering the representation, passing orders thereon, and releasing a sum to the petitioner.

¶26

Key takeaways

If aggrieved by the quantum of amount released, or seeking any further relief, the petitioner may work out his remedy in the manner known to law; such a grievance cannot be a ground to sustain the present contempt proceedings.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution, alleging wilful disobedience by the Superintending Engineer, TNPDCL/TANGEDCO, Tirunelveli, of the order dated 29.08.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.23653 of 2025, which had directed her to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.04.2025 on its merits and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks. Respondent's counsel placed on record a communication dated 31.01.2026 recording release of Rs.10,09,643/- to the petitioner after considering his representation. The Court held that the writ direction was only to consider the representation and pass orders, which the respondent had done, followed by release of a sum; the petitioner's grievance that he was entitled to a higher amount could not sustain the contempt proceedings and he was free to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. Holding that no case of wilful disobedience was made out, the Court closed the contempt petition, granting liberty to agitate his rights before the appropriate forum, without costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.163 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CONT.P.(MD)No.163 of 2026

P.Kovilpitchai

... Petitioner

vs.

Akilandeswari, Superintending Engineer, TNPDCL / TANGEDCO, Tirunelveli. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Contempt Petition is filed is under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the contemnor / 3^rd respondent for Contempt of Court for wilful and deliberate violation of order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.23653 of 2025, dated 29.08.2025 amounting to contempt of Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr.M.K.Viswanath For Respondent :Mr.S.Deenadhayalan *****

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.163 of 2026

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Contempt Petition has been filed seeking to punish the respondent/contemnor for the alleged wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.23653 of 2025, dated 29.08.2025.

¶18

By the said order, the respondent was directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 25.04.2025 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶19

The said representation was submitted by the petitioner seeking release of the amount allegedly due towards the completion of work entrusted to him by the respondent.

¶20

Mr. S. Deenadhayalan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has placed on record a communication dated 31.01.2026, wherein it is stated that a sum of Rs.10,09,643/- has been released in favour of the petitioner after considering his representation.

¶21

2/5

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.163 of 2026

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to a higher amount and that the respondent has not fully complied with the order of this Court.

¶25

This Court is of the view that the direction issued in the writ

¶26

petition was only to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass orders. The respondent has complied with the said direction by considering the representation and passing orders thereon, followed by release of a sum to the petitioner.

¶27

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the quantum of amount released

¶28

or seeks any further relief, it is open to him to work out his remedy in the manner known to law, but the same cannot be a ground to sustain the present contempt proceedings.

¶29