Dismissed¶28

Kalaimani, v. S. Santhi

Madras HC6 Apr 2026CONT P(MD)/997/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench contempt dismissal: petitioner Kalaimani sought punishment of State officials (Public Secretary, Political Pension Department; District Collector, Ramanathapuram) for wilful disobedience of the order dated 29.04.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.12843 of 2025; petition dismissed because the Ministry of Home Affairs had, on 03.11.2025 and before filing, sought pension-application particulars from the petitioner, who had not replied; petitioner left free to approach the appropriate authority.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition dismissed, expressly without prejudice to the petitioner approaching the appropriate authority in connection with the processing of the pension application. ¶28

Kalaimani, Vs S. Santhi — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CONT.P(MD)No.997 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

CONT.P(MD)No.997 of 2026

Kalaimani

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.S.Santhi, M.A.,

The Public Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶12

Public (Political Pension – 1) Department, Secretariat,

¶13

Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 009.

¶14

2.Simranjeet Singh Kahlon, I.A.S.,

¶15

The District Collector,

¶16

District Collector Office,

¶17

Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District, Tamil Nadu – 623503. : Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of

¶19

Courts Act, 1971, praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the

¶20

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

¶21

CONT.P(MD)No.997 of 2026

¶22

contemnors / respondents 2 & 3 and punish them for their willful disobedience of the order dated 29.04.2025 made in W.P.(MD) No.12843 of 2025.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan Additional Government Pleader

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader states that even prior to the filing of the Contempt Petition, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs has addressed a communication to the petitioner on 03.11.2025, calling for various particulars, enabling them to process the petitioner's application for pension. Therefore, he states that the question of contempt does not arise, since the petitioner has not replied to the said communication. A copy of the said communication is also handed over to the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

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

¶27

CONT.P(MD)No.997 of 2026

¶28

2 . Recording the same, the Contempt Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority.

¶29

06.04.2026

¶30

Index: Yes/No. Internet: Yes/No. MR

¶31

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