Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26873
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J
R.Satiyamurthi – Appellant
Versus
V.Dakshinamoorthy IAS – Respondent
Contempt Petition|W.P.No.37409/2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Selva Thirumurugan
For the Contemnor(s):Mr.M.Murali, Government Advocate.
Delay in court order compliance condoned if not willful and eventual compliance achieved.
Headnote:The Court directed consideration of representations for inclusion in promotion panel under relevant service rules, along with consequential benefits, within twelve weeks. Petitioners alleged non-compliance amounting to contempt. Respondent complied via letter dated 13.03.2026 after verification, attributing delay to miscommunication. Court accepted explanation, condoned delay, and closed proceedings. Issues framed as willful disobedience of directions in W.P. No. 37409 of 2025. Ratio: Delay in compliance not willful where eventual compliance verified and formal order passed. Contempt petition closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. alleged non-compliance with promotion directions (Para 2) |
| 2. compliance achieved despite delay (Para 3) |
| 3. delay condoned, petition closed (Para 5) |
ORDER
This Contempt Petition is filed to punish the respondent for his willful contempt and gross disobedience of the order passed in W.P. No. 37409 of 2025 dated 07.10.2025, alleging that the directions issued by this Court have not been complied with.
2.The case of the petitioners is that this Court, while disposing of W.P.
No. 37409 of 2025 on 07.10.2025, directed the first respondent to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners on various dates regarding the inclusion of their names in the promotion panel for the relevant period, along with other consequential and notional benefits. Although the first respondent was directed to pass orders in accordance with the law within twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the petitioners allege that this has not been complied with, amounting to willful contempt and gross disobedience of the Court's directions.
3.The Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the order of this Court has been duly complied with. He states that the first respondent, vide Letter No. 12143362/AA3(1)/2025-4 dated 13.03.2026, has disposed of the petitioners' representations. He further submits that while the second respondent had initially acted due to a miscommunication, the first respondent has since verified and passed a formal order in compliance with the Court's directions. While acknowledging the delay in compliance, he submits that the same was neither willful nor wanton and requests that the delay be condoned. Consequently, he prays that the respondent be absolved of contempt and the compliance be recorded by this Court.
4.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
5.The explanation offered by the learned Government Advocate for the delay in compliance is accepted. Taking into consideration that the order of this Court has now been duly complied with, this Contempt Petition is closed.
