Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the above Contempt Application praying to punish the respondents for contempt of Court on account of their disobedence of the order of this Court dated 28-4-1997 in W.M.P. No. 10090 of 1997 in W.P. No. 6091 of 1997. 2. Sub-Application No. 52 of 2000 has been filed by the petitioner praying to direct the respondents to restore the petitioner Sangam members to their original Narikuravar Colony allotted to them in S. No. 143, Moonankaradu in Salem city limits pending disposal of the Contempt Application. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein has filed W.P. No. 6091 of 1997 praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from evicting the members of the petitioner Sangam from their respective house sites situate in S. No. 143/1 of Narikoravar Colony, Moonakaradu, Salem town otherwise than under due process of law and award compensation and damages. The said writ petition has been admitted and is pending disposal. 4. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has also filed W.M.P. No. 10097 of 1997 for an interim order or direction to the respondents 1 to 5 therein, we are also the respondents 1 to 5 in the above Contempt Application, to arrange appropriate protection and rehabilitation to the members of the petitioner Association for their peaceful possession and enjoyment of houses and sites situate at the same place mentioned in the writ petition. 5. In the said Writ Miscellaneous Petition, this Court has ordered 'interim stay and notice' as per its order dated 28-4-1997. It is this order which is said to have been not complied with resulting in the petitioner Association coming forward to file the above Contempt Application seeking to punish the respondents 1 to 7. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for both and perused the materials placed on record. 7. At the outset it is relevant to mention that the respondents 6 and 7 have been unnecessarily impleaded as parties to the above Contempt Application since no direction is sought for in the Writ Miscellaneous Petition against them, wherein the order passed by this Court is claimed either not implemented or violated and the specific direction sought for therein is only to direct the respondents 1 to 5 and not the respondents 6 and 7. Hence, this Contempt Application has absolutely no relevance regarding respondents 6 and 7. 8. Hence, this Contempt Application has absolutely no relevance regarding respondents 6 and 7. 8. Assessing the true meaning and merit of the relief sought for in the W.M.P. No. 10090 of 1997 in W.P. No. 6091 of 1997 and the order passed thereon dated 28-4-1997, it is a direction that the petitioner has sought for against the respondents 1 to 5 to arrange appropriate protection and rehabilitation to the members of the petitioner Association for their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the houses and house sites pending disposal of the said writ petition. First of all, prima facie, it must be established on the part of the petitioner that the members of the petitioner Association are in physical and lawful possession and enjoyment of the houses and sites situate in S. No. 143/1 of Moonankaradu village, Salem town, so as to claim protection to members of the petitioner Sangam are in possession and enjoyment of the houses and sites so as to think of affording the protection as sought for. 9-10. So far as the second part of the relief regarding rehabilitation for the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the members of the petitioner Sangam is concerned, it is mandatory in nature, which could be decided only at the time of disposing of the main writ petition. Moreover, so far as the rehabilitation of the members of the petitioner Association in the said houses and sites is concerned, it depends on various aspects and feasibilities and only on a definite direction issued by this Court assessing the whole condition regarding the existence of the houses and house sites, the occupation of the petitioners therein the right of the petitioners to occupy the same and many such and other contingencies. Hence, this plea could also be answered only at the time of disposing of the main writ petition on a detailed enquiry held affording both parties a fair opportunity to be heard. 11. However, an order of interim stay has been passed in W. M. P. No. 10090 of 1997 in W. P. No. 6091 of 1997 regarding the nature of relief sought for to arrange for appropriate protection and to rehabilitate the members of the petitioner Sangam for their peaceful possession and enjoyment of houses and sites. 11. However, an order of interim stay has been passed in W. M. P. No. 10090 of 1997 in W. P. No. 6091 of 1997 regarding the nature of relief sought for to arrange for appropriate protection and to rehabilitate the members of the petitioner Sangam for their peaceful possession and enjoyment of houses and sites. Both the prayers only on being granted, have to be implemented thereafter and since they pertain to preservation of the existing rights and taking rehabilitative measures the question of stay would not arise at all as by the term 'stay' it is meant only to maintain the status quo that is in existence on the date of passing of the order. The very relief praying for protection rehabilitation of the members of the petitioner Sangam, as found in the said Writ Miscellaneous Petition, would disclose that they have nothing to do with maintaining any status quo and the order of interim stay granted in the circumstances of the case and the relief sought for is meaningless besides being non-implementable in character. The Apex Court in very many of its decisions has clarified that the question of contempt of Court may not arise relating to non-implementable orders. This is one such order that cannot be implemented and hence violation of the said order is out of question. 12. Consequently, the Sub-Application No. 52 of 2000 filed praying to direct the respondents to restore the petitioner Sangam members to their original Narikuravar colony allotted to them in S. No. 143 of Moonakaradu in Salem city pending disposal of the above Contempt Application, since also in the nature of mandatory relief only the decision made on a thorough enquiry in the writ petition could answer this question and no such directions could be given much less in a contempt application. Hence, the Sub Application No. 52 of 2000 also equally becomes liable to be dismissed in limine. 13. In all probabilities, both the above Contempt Application and the Sub Application instituted on the part of the petitioner Association cannot be maintained and the same become only liable to be dismissed in limine. In result, both the above Contempt Application and the Sub Application fail and the same are dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Petition dismissed.