N. Manikandan Vs Chitra Vijayan IAS — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

N. Manikandan Vs Chitra Vijayan IAS — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition closed without punishment, with the petitioner's liberty to reopen it by filing a sub application kept open; directions issued to the Corporation (no sale of bottled water, water to be given in paper cups, provision of dustbins, no sale of food items, compliance to be ensured); status report on the contract with the 3rd respondent to be filed; main writ petition listed for hearing on 04.08.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent/Madurai Corporation (Commissioner, Madurai Municipal Corporation) violated the interim directions issued by this Court on 17.04.2026 in WP(MD) No. 10978/2026, warranting punishment for contempt. +1 more

Court's answer

On the learned Additional Advocate General's submission on instructions, the Court observed that the Madurai Corporation's decision to cancel the contract and refund the amount paid by the 3rd respondent would put an end to the commercial activities introduced by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

The Corporation authorities were directed to ensure that water bottles are not sold; a person wanting water may be given water in paper cups.

Key takeaways

There should be number of dustbins in which the paper cups could be put, and there shall be no sale of food items, which would again be a source for litter to occur.ratio¶¶26
The respondents were directed to ensure that these steps are taken.ratio¶¶26
A status report was called for with respect to the contract entered into with the 3rd respondent in the writ petition.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by N. Manikandan against Chitra Vijayan IAS, Commissioner, Madurai Municipal Corporation, alleging willful and wanton disobedience of the interim directions dated 17.04.2026 in WP(MD) No. 10978/2026. On the Additional Advocate General's instructions that the Corporation had decided to cancel the contract with the impleaded 3rd respondent (a Contractor who had commenced commercial activities) and to refund the amount paid, the Court observed that this would put an end to the commercial activities introduced by the 3rd respondent. Further directions issued: no sale of bottled water (water to be supplied in paper cups), sufficient dustbins for the paper cups, and no sale of food items, to prevent litter; respondents to ensure compliance. Status report on the contract called for. Contempt petition closed with liberty to the petitioner to reopen it by filing a sub application; main writ petition listed for 04.08.2026.

Cont.P(MD)No.1909 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 14.07.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

Cont.P.(MD)No.1909 of 2026

N. Manikandan S/o. Nagarajan, Door No.11, Thirusulakaliyamman Kovil Street, Thandakaranpatti, Palanganatham, Madurai South, Madurai -625003.

... Petitioner(s) in CONT P(MD). 1909/ 2026

Vs. -

Chitra Vijayan Ias The Commissioner, Madurai Municipal Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Madurai -625 002.

... Respondent(s) in CONT P(MD). 1909/ 2026

Prayer in CONT P(MD). 1909/ 2026 :Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the contennor for her willful and wanton disobedince of the order passed by this Honourable Court in WP(MD) No. 10978/2026 dated 17.04.2026.

For Petitioner : M/s.Gokul Abimanyu For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Addl.Advocate General Mr.S.Vinayak

Page 1 of 5

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

Cont.P(MD)No.1909 of 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)

The contempt petition has been filed complaining that the directions issued by this Court on 17.04.2026 as interim directions have been violated by the respondent/Madurai Corporation.

The writ petition thereafter came up for further hearing on 11.06.2026, where a Contractor, who had been appointed and who had commenced commercial activities, had been impleaded as the 3^rd respondent in the writ petition.

Today, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, on Instructions, that the Madurai Corporation has taken a decision to cancel the contract and to refund the amount paid by the 3^rd respondent, who had been impleaded in the writ petition. This would put an end to the commercial activities introduced by the 3^rd respondent in the writ petition.

Page 2 of 5

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

Cont.P(MD)No.1909 of 2026

It is, however, stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

there are other shops wherein water is sold in bottles, which are purchased and the bottles are thrown in all over the place. It is also contended that food items are also sold and the the litter is sprayed all over the place. To that extent, let the Corporation authorities ensure that water bottles are not sold, but if somebody wants to have water, they can get them in paper cups. There should be number of dustbins, wherein the paper cups could be put. Let there not be sale of food items, which will again be a source for litter to occur. Let the respondents ensure that these steps are taken.

Let a status report be filed with respect to the contract entered into

with the 3^rd respondent in the writ petition.

Though the contempt petition stands closed, the rights of the

petitioner to reopen the contempt petition by filing a sub application is always kept open.

Page 3 of 5

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

Cont.P(MD)No.1909 of 2026

List the main writ petition for hearing on 04.08.2026.

(C.V.K.,J.) (R.S.V,J.) 14.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No RR

Page 4 of 5

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

Cont.P(MD)No.1909 of 2026

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J

RR

Cont.P.(MD)No.1909 of 2026

14.07.2026

Page 5 of 5

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