ORDER 1.LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED FROM TWO ORDERS PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT REJECTING TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS, FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE US, FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDERS OF THE HIGH COURT. WHAT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED WAS AN ORDER PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT ON 3-8-2000 DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL FILED BY RESPONDENT 1 FROM AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER IN A PENDING WRIT PETITION AND AN ORDER DATED 2-3-2001 HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD VIOLATED THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000. IT MAY BE INDICATED AT THIS STAGE THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT 1 IS STILL PENDING. 3. THE DISPUTE IN THE WRIT PETITION RELATES TO CERTAIN CONSTRUCTIONS BEING MADE BY THE APPELLANT. RESPONDENT LS ALLEGATION IN THE WRIT PETITION IS THAT THE CONSTRUCTIONS WERE BEING CARRIED OUT IN A MANNER WHICH AFFECTED HIS RIGHTS AS AN ADJACENT OWNER. THE SINGLE JUDGE HAD NOT GRANTED ANY INTERIM RELIEF. THE DIVISION BENCH DISPOSED OF RESPONDENT LS APPEAL BY THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000. THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000 APPEARS TO HAVE HELD THAT (1) A DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT HAD BEEN RAISED WHICH COULD NOT BE GONE INTO BY THE COURT; (2) THE SINGLE JUDGES ORDER HAD SAFEGUARDED THE INTEREST OF THE PARTIES; (3) THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO MAKE CONSTRUCTION AS PER THE APPROVED PLAN; AND (4) THE APPELLANT COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE COURT TO MAKE ANY CONSTRUCTION WHICH WAS IN "VARIATION OR VIOLATION OF THE RULES AND CANNOT SEEK RATIFICATION FOR THAT". IT WAS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD CONSTRUCT "AS PER RULE" PROVIDED THAT IT FURNISHED AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT IF ANY CONSTRUCTION WAS FOUND IN VARIATION OR IN VIOLATION AGAINST "THE SANCTIONED PLAN", IT WOULD E DEMOLISH THE SAME. THE APPELLANT WAS DIRECTED TO FURNISH AN UNDERTAKING TO THE CHENNAI MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CMDA) AND UPON FURNISHING SUCH UNDERTAKING IT COULD PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION "AS PER THE APPROVED PLAN". 4. THE APPELLANT STATES THAT IT HAD GIVEN AN UNDERTAKING TO CMDA ON THE VERY NEXT DAY IN TERMS OF THE COURTS ORDER DATED 3-8-2000. IT ALSO SUBMITTED F REVISED PLANS FOR RAISING CONSTRUCTION OVER THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTIONS TO CMDA. 5. AT THIS STAGE, RESPONDENT FILED A CONTEMPT PETITION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000 BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE APPELLANT STATES THAT IT HAD GIVEN AN UNDERTAKING TO CMDA ON THE VERY NEXT DAY IN TERMS OF THE COURTS ORDER DATED 3-8-2000. IT ALSO SUBMITTED F REVISED PLANS FOR RAISING CONSTRUCTION OVER THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTIONS TO CMDA. 5. AT THIS STAGE, RESPONDENT FILED A CONTEMPT PETITION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000 BY THE APPELLANT. WHILE THE CONTEMPT PETITION WAS PENDING, THE TAMIL NADU TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1971 WAS AMENDED AND SECTION 113-A WAS INTRODUCED WHICH ALLOWS THE REGULARISATION OF CERTAIN UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTIONS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS. THE APPELLANT STATES THAT IT HAD FILED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000 AS TO WHETHER IT COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 113-A. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT THAT APPLICATION IS STILL PENDING. 6. THE CONTEMPT PETITION WAS DISPOSED OF BY AN ORDER DATED 2-3-2001 IN WHICH THE DIVISION BENCH FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD VIOLATED THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, ONE OF THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS HELD GUILTY OF CONTEMPT WAS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FILED AN UNDERTAKING AS WAS REQUIRED BY THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000. IT IS STATED THAT PURSUANT TO AN INQUIRY BY THE POLICE INITIATED AT THE INSTANCE OF CMDA IT WAS FOUND, AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT AN UNDERTAKING HAD BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 4-8-2000. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE APPELLANT WAS DIRECTED BY THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000 NOT ONLY TO PAY A FINE BUT ALSO TO DEMOLISH THE CONSTRUCTION MADE BY IT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000. 7. THE APPELLANT CAME UP BEFORE THIS COURT BY WAY OF A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000. IT ALSO FILED A CIVIL APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2-3-2001. THIS COURT HAD GRANTED AN ORDER OF STATUS QUO. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WAS DISMISSED BY THIS COURT ON 24-3-2001, NOT ON MERITS BUT BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS COURT. AS FAR AS THE CIVIL APPEAL IS CONCERNED, IT WAS ALLOWED TO BE WITHDRAWN BY US WITH LIBERTY GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT TO APPROACH THE HIGH COURT BY WAY OF A REVIEW PETITION. 8. AS WE HAVE ALREADY STATED, THE APPELLANT FILED TWO REVIEW PETITIONS; ONE IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000 AND THE SECOND IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER DATED 2-3-2001. 8. AS WE HAVE ALREADY STATED, THE APPELLANT FILED TWO REVIEW PETITIONS; ONE IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000 AND THE SECOND IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER DATED 2-3-2001. AS FAR AS THE REVIEW PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000 IS CONCERNED, THAT WAS DISMISSED BY THE HIGH COURT ON THE GROUND OF DELAY. AS FAR AS THE REVIEW PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2-3-2001 IS CONCERNED THE DIVISION BENCH WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000 STOOD AND THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF CONSIDERING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 113-A. 9. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE MEANWHILE THE APPELLANT HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR REGULARISATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION MADE BY IT UNDER SECTION 113-A. CMDA, WHICH APPEARS BEFORE US TODAY, HAS STATED ON AFFIDAVIT THAT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE FOR REGULARISATION WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THIS COURT HAD DISMISSED THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION. THIS ORDER OF CMDA IS SUBJECT-MATTER OF SEPARATE WRIT PETITION AND WE MAKE NO OBSERVATION WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OF THAT WRIT PETITION WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. 10. RETURNING TO THE MERITS OF THE ORDERS REJECTING THE REVIEW PETITIONS: IT IS TRUE THAT THE SLP FROM THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000 WAS DISMISSED IN 2001 AND THE REVIEW PETITION WAS FILED IN 2002. NEVERTHELESS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE REVIEW PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDONED. SECTION 113-A OF THE TAMIL NADU TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1971 CAME INTO FORCE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000. THE APPLICATION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000 WITH REGARD TO SECTION 113-A IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE SLP FROM THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000 WAS NOT DISMISSED ON MERITS. THERE WAS ALSO A CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE ORDER DATED 2-3-2001 PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT WHICH ARISES OUT OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000. IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL WE HAD ALLOWED THE PETITIONER TO FILE A REVIEW PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. FINALLY THE WRIT PETITION OF RESPONDENT 1 IS STILL PENDING. THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000 WAS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. IN ALL THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDONED AND THE ORDERS DATED 3-8-2000 AND A 2-3-2001 REVIEWED ON MERITS. FINALLY THE WRIT PETITION OF RESPONDENT 1 IS STILL PENDING. THE ORDER DATED 3-8-2000 WAS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. IN ALL THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDONED AND THE ORDERS DATED 3-8-2000 AND A 2-3-2001 REVIEWED ON MERITS. SINCE THE ORDER DATED 2-3-2001 IS NOW THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF REVIEW, THE DEMOLITION DIRECTED THERE UNDER IS STAYED UNTIL THE DISPOSAL OF THE REVIEW APPLICATIONS. THE APPEALS ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED WITHOUT ANY ORDER AS TO COSTS.