Dismissed¶21

N.Nithiananthapandi, v. Mrs. Supriya Sahu, I.a.S., and Another

Madras HC17 Jul 2026SUB APPL/761/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; SUB APPL 761/2026 in CONT P 3010/2024; decided 17-07-2026; T. Vinod Kumar, J.; reopening of closed contempt petition refused; writ petitioner to work out separate remedy; contempt petition closed after recorded compliance with W.P.No.11233 of 2021 order dated 12.01.2024; Section 151 CPC; sub application misconceived; closed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

If the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the respondent authorities as not in consonance with the directions in the writ order, he must work out his remedy separately and cannot initiate contempt proceedings or seek reopening of a contempt petition already closed by the Court with its satisfaction recorded. ¶20

N.Nithiananthapandi, Vs Mrs. Supriya Sahu, I.a.S., and Another — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

SUB APPL No. 761 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶6

SUB APPL No. 761 of 2026 IN CONT P NO. 3010 of 2024

N.Nithiananthapandi

..Applicant

1.Mrs. Supriya Sahu, I.A.S., The Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶11

2.Mr. Srinivas R Reddy, IFS, The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Head of the Forest Department, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.

¶12

..Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 151 of CPC praying to re-open Contempt Petition No. 3010 of 2024, which was closed by order dated 03.12.2024.

¶14

For Applicant: Mr. T.Dharani For Respondents: Mr.T.Gowthaman AAG Assisted by Mrs.Y.Kavitha Government Advocate

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This sub application is filed to reopen the contempt petition which was closed by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2024.

¶17

__________ Page1 of 3

¶18

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

¶19

SUB APPL No. 761 of 2026

¶20

This Court after taking note of the proceedings issued by the respondents had closed the said contempt petition being satisfied that the respondents have complied with the order of this Court dated 12.01.2024 in W.P.No.11233 of 2021. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the respondent authorities as not in consonance with the directions contained in the order made in writ petition, the writ petitioner has to work out his remedy separately and cannot initiate contempt proceedings or to seek reopen of the contempt petition which was closed by this Court, recording its satisfaction. Thus, the sub application filed is misconceived.

¶21