Cont.P.(MD)No.1989 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Cont.P.(MD)No.1989 of 2026 Bakthavachalam ...Petitioner vs. Senthilkumar, The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Suriyacode, Killiyoor Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ...Contemnor / 1st respondent Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying to punish the contemnor for his wilful, deliberate and continuous disobedience of the order dated 14.07.2023 passed in W.P.(MD)No.18034 of 2022 and consequently, direct the contemnor / respondent no.1 to immediately and strictly comply with the said order by permanently restoring and safeguarding the Electricity Service Connection No.198-006-168 to the petitioner's house property at Door No.14-169, Saraplazhanji, Kanyakumari District, with adequate police protection. For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan.P.M. For Respondent : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, Standing Counsel for TNEB 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.(MD)No.1989 of 2026 ORDER The petitioner, with a grievance that one Natesan and one Angel Mary had disconnected his EB service connection, has filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.18034 of 2022 before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-TANGEDCO to restore the EB service connection. This Court, by its order dated 14.07.2023, allowed the Writ Petition with a direction to restore the service connection of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the service connection was restored by TANGEDCO, it was again disconnected by the aforesaid Natesan and Angel Mary (R3 and R4 in the Writ Petition). Hence, the petitioner has filed this Contempt Petition as against the TANGEDCO official. 2. Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned counsel, who takes notice for the respondent, submitted that as directed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18034 of 2022, the service connection was restored on 31.05.2025 itself. However, R3 and R4 in the Writ Petition have once again disconnected the service connection of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is having a personal dispute with R3 and R4, and therefore, they are repeatedly disconnecting the EB service connection. In this regard, the petitioner and TANGEDCO have lodged separate complaints against R3 and R4. However, the Police have not taken any action. Insofar as the 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.(MD)No.1989 of 2026 TANGEDCO officials are concerned, they have complied with the order of this Court by restoring the service connection. 3. It appears that the respondent-TANGEDCO has complied with the order of this Court. However, R3 and R4 in the Writ Petition have disconnected the EB service connection of the petitioner. It is not known as to why the Police officials have not taken any action even after TANGEDCO has lodged the complaint. In any event, the petitioner has to pursue the criminal complaint lodged before the concerned Police. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Contempt Petition. 4. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is closed. 09.07.2026 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No mbi 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.(MD)No.1989 of 2026 B .PUGALENDHI , J. mbi Cont.P.(MD)No.1989 of 2026 09.07.2026 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis