ORDER: The above revision was preferred under Art.227 of The Constitution as against the proceedings in C.M.A. No.31 of 2001 p[ending on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpet. The above revision has been preferred being aggrieved by an order of stay granted by the learned District Judge (appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975. 2. This Court at the stage of admission, by order dated 19.3.2002, directed the Principal District Judge, Chengalpet, to dispose of C.M.A. No.31 of 2001 within six weeks from the date of communication of the order. The said order was passed on 19.3.2002. 3. The copy of the said order was forwarded to the Principal District Judge, Chengalpet, directly by the Registry. The order, as seen from the report of the District Judge, has reached the District Court on 15.4.2002. As per the said direction to dispose of C.M.A. No.31 of 2001, the learned District Judge should have disposed of the appeal before 29.5.2002, on which date the six weeks period comes to an end. Even though the last date for disposal expired during the last week of May, 2002, the District Judge should have taken steps to either dispose of the appeal himself or should have directed the matter to be listed before the vacation Court for disposal. This has not been done. 4. After this, the petitioner in the revision petition has filed a petition stating thus: "The petitioner states that after communication of the above said order passed by the Hon’ble Court to the Principal District Court, Chengalpet, the said C.M.A. No.31 of 001 came up on 20.4.2002, 3.5.2002, 10.6.2002, 24.6.2002, 19.8.2002, 23.9.2002, 11.11.2002 and sands adjourned 25.11.2002. The learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpet, inspite of specific direction issued by this Hon’ble Court to dispose of the said C.M.A. No.31 of 2001 within six weeks of the said C.M.A. No.31 of 2001 within six weeks of communication of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court, has not complied with the direction and adjourning the case to too far dates." 5. This Court noticed the failure on the part of the Principal District Judges, Chengalpet to dispose of the appeal. The District Judge also has not addressed this Court for extension of time before the expiry of the date. 6. This Court noticed the failure on the part of the Principal District Judges, Chengalpet to dispose of the appeal. The District Judge also has not addressed this Court for extension of time before the expiry of the date. 6. In fact, the appeal, C.M.A. No.31 of 2001 came to be posted before the District Court on 20.4.2002, 3.5.2002, 10.6.2002, 24.6.2002, 19.8.2002, 23.9.2002, 11.11.2002 as well as on 25.11.2002, yet the appeal has not bee disposed of. This Court called for a report by order dated 22.11.2002, calling upon the District Judge to report about the stage of appeal? or whether the appeal has been disposed of, if disposed of, what is the date and what is the date on which the order of the Court in C.R.P. No.48 of 2002 dated 19.3.2002 was communicated. 7. The learned District Judge has submitted his report dated 5.12.2002. Even as of today, the learned District Judge has not disposed of the appeal nor he has addressed this Court seeking for extension of time till this Court called upon the learned District Judge to submit his report. It is equally unfortunate the learned District has not been communicated to him. No separate order has been passed and it is only on the orders of this Court report has been called for. 8. The District Judge in page 2 of his report refers to certain subsequent order of this Court directing the District Judge to dispose of C.M.A.No.31 of 2002 at the earliest, but adds that order is not readily available in the records. In C.R.P.NO.48 of 2002 which was finally disposed by order dated 19.3.2002, no such direction has been issued as already this Court has directed the learned District Judge has reported that the revision petitioner Rameshkumar Tiberwala has taken out an application to implead himself as proposed 2nd respondent in all the batch of P.P. C.M.A. Nos.31 of 2001 to 42 of 2001. Such application even according to the learned District Judge has been disposed of after contest on 24.6.2002. 9. The learned District has referred to applications I.A. Nos.1014 of 2002 to 1020 of 2002 in the said batch of C.M.As. taken out to examine the witness under O.41, Rule 27 and to mark documents. Such application even according to the learned District Judge has been disposed of after contest on 24.6.2002. 9. The learned District has referred to applications I.A. Nos.1014 of 2002 to 1020 of 2002 in the said batch of C.M.As. taken out to examine the witness under O.41, Rule 27 and to mark documents. This is not a valid explanation which this Court would be justified in accepting The counsel appearing for the petitioner had represented that both the parties are always ready and that under some pretext or other the matter is being adjourned and thus delayed. 10. The omission on the part of the learned District Judge, Chengalpet, his failure to dispose of the appeal and his not seeking for extension of time before the date fixed for the disposal deserves to be commented and deprecated. 11. However, taking into consideration of the entire facts, this Court directs the learned District Judge, Chengalpet to dispose of C.M.A. No.31 of 2002 pending on his file before 31.1.20003 and submit a report without fail. Any delay or omission in this respect will be viewed seriously and suitable action will be ordered. 12. The Registry is directed to communicate the order by 30.12.2002 to the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpet, by speed post.