✦ Madras High Court

D.Lakshmi Narayanan v. K.Veera Raghava Rao

P T ASHA

Case at a glance

Bench
P T ASHA

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44.E.Sina DivakaranThe Superintending Engineer, Workshop And Stores Circle, Water Resources Department, Chepauk, Chennai -600 005. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT P No. 854 of 2026__________Page2 of 35. Srinivasan, The Executive Engineer, And General Superintendent, Water Resources Department, Public Works Workshop And Stores, Chepauk, Chennai -600 005...Contemnor(s)Prayer: This contempt…

Judgment

CONT P No. 854 of 2026__________Page1 of 3IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHACONT P No. 854 of 2026D.Lakshmi Narayanan,..Petitioner(s)Vs1.K.Veera Raghava Rao, IAS and 4 othersThe Secretary To Government, Labour Welfare And Skill Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2.

S.A.Raman, IASThe Commissioner Of Labour, Labour Commissionerate, Department Of Labour, DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006. Presently Labour Officer Quarters Campus, Anna Nagar, Chennai 40.

3.

R.Thangaraj, The Chief Engineer, Operation And Maintenance, State Dam Safety Organisation Water Resources Department, Chepauk, Chennai -600 005.

4.

E.Sina DivakaranThe Superintending Engineer, Workshop And Stores Circle, Water Resources Department, Chepauk, Chennai -600 005. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT P No. 854 of 2026__________Page2 of 35. Srinivasan, The Executive Engineer, And General Superintendent, Water Resources Department, Public Works Workshop And Stores, Chepauk, Chennai -600 005...Contemnor(s)Prayer: This contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 seeking to punish the respondents for willfully and deliberately disobeying the orders of this Court, dated 11.08.2025 in W.P.No.29867 of 2025 under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act 1971.For Petitioner(s):Mr. K.N.PandianFor Contemnor(s):Mr.V.Prasad, Government AdvocateORDERIt is brought to the notice of this Court that the Division Bench has stayed the operation of the impugned order. 2. In view of the matter being seized of by the Division Bench, the present contempt petition is closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedies, if so advised, after the disposal of the writ appeal.12-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/Norap https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CONT P No. 854 of 2026__________Page3 of 3P.T.ASHA, J.rapCONT P No. 854 of 202612-06-2026

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madras High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments