Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. The appellants - interveners in the Writ Petition, who are the ward members of Pallipattu Town Panchayat, filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the order dated 211. 2007 made in Writ Petition No.34715 of 2007, in which G.O.(D) No.426, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TPZ) Department dated 19. 2007 removing the first respondent from the office of the President of Pallipattu Town Panchayat under Section 40A(12) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920), (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been quashed. 2. The material facts, which are necessary for disposal of the writ appeal, are as follows: The first respondent was elected as a President of Pallipattu Town Panchayat on 210. 2006. The interveners/ elected ward members 10 in number out of 15 , have presented a written notice of intention to make a motion expressing want of confidence in Thirumathi M.Ranimunirathinam, President of Pallipattu Town Panchayat, the first respondent herein, together with a copy of the motion proposed to be made to the third respondent - Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Thiruvallur Zone. Pursuant to the said letter, the third respondent issued a notice on 26. 2007 under Section 40-B of the Act intimating the members about the convening of the meeting on 7. 2007. Since the said notice was not in conformity with Section 40-A(3), in the sense, that there was no fifteen days clear notice, the said meeting stood cancelled and another notice was issued by the third respondent on 7. 2007 convening the meeting of the Panchayat on 17. 2007. On that day, the motion was carried out. Questioning the correctness of the procedure followed, particularly, the competence of the third respondent in issuing a second notice, the first respondent moved this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.27629 of 2007. In that writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 28. 2007 and order of interim injunction restraining the first respondent therein – State Government from passing further orders in pursuance of the meeting held on 17. 2007 for the purpose of removal of the President of the Pallipattu Town Panchayat was also granted for a period of two weeks and thereafter it was extended by another two weeks on 9. 2007. On 29. 2007, this Court disposed of the writ petition in the following terms: "....2. 2007 for the purpose of removal of the President of the Pallipattu Town Panchayat was also granted for a period of two weeks and thereafter it was extended by another two weeks on 9. 2007. On 29. 2007, this Court disposed of the writ petition in the following terms: "....2. Though the prayer sought for in this writ petition is for a larger relief, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would confine his submission to the limited extent that the petitioner intends to submit a representation to the Government within a period stipulated, if such representation is sent, the Government may be directed to consider it on merits and pass orders in accordance with law. 3. In view of the above limited submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, if any representation is received from the petitioner within wo weeks from today, the Government is directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed." Pursuant to the said order, the first respondent gave a representation to the second respondent herein on 10. 2007. In the mean time, the second respondent passed the impugned Government Order on 19. 2007 removing the first respondent from the Office of the President. The said Government Order was assailed by the first respondent by filing the writ petition. 3. By reason of the impugned order, the writ petition was allowed by quashing the Government Order as non est in law on the premise that the said Government Order came to be passed while there was a specific order of injunction restraining the second respondent – State Government from proceeding further pursuant to the meeting held on 17. 2007 in force. 4. At this juncture, it is pertinent to state that from 10. 2007 in force. 4. At this juncture, it is pertinent to state that from 10. 2007, certain amendments were made to the laws relating to the Municipal Corporations and the Municipalities in the State of Tamil Nadu under Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.5 of 2007, by which the following amendments were inserted to Section 40-A of the Act, which reads as follows: "In section 40-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, - (1) in sub-section (2), for the expression "not less than one-half of the sanctioned strength", the expression "not less than three-fifth of the sanctioned strength" shall be substituted; (2) in sub-section (12), for the expression "not less than three-fifths of the sanctioned strength", the expression "not less than three-fifth of the sanctioned strength" shall be substituted; (3) in sub-section (13), for the expression "six months", the expression "one year" shall be substituted; (4) for sub-section (14), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely: - "14) No notice of a motion under this section shall be received: - (i) within one year of the assumption of office by: or (ii) during the last year of the term of office, of, a chairman or a vice-chairman" Any motion expressing want of confidence in the chairman or vice-chairman made under section 40-A and pending before any officer, authority or the Government, as the case may be, as provided in section 40-A, immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance, shall abate." 5. Mr. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the order impugned is passed without appreciating the scope of the writ petition in W.P.No.27629 of 2007 and the order is in error in giving much importance to the interim order, without considering the nature of the final order passed in the writ petition. He further contended that the interim order passed would automatically merge with the final order. That aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. The dispute in the earlier case was concerned only about the issuance of the notice and when a final decision has been taken pursuant to the notice, the writ petition virtually becomes infructuous. That aspect of the matter has not been considered in the order impugned. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued for sustaining the order of the learned single Judge. 7. That aspect of the matter has not been considered in the order impugned. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued for sustaining the order of the learned single Judge. 7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent Government submits that of course, it is true that an interim injunction has been granted against the Government restraining it from proceeding further pursuant to the resolution passed on 17. 2007, but the passing of interim order has not been brought to the notice of the Government before issuing the notification in the official gazette and it was brought to the notice of the Government only on 19. 2007. In the mean time the Government Order has been published in the Government Gazette on 19. 2007. Hence the Government cannot faulted in issuing the Government Order. 8. From the above said facts, it is clear that on written notice by 10 out of 15 councillors, on 26. 2007 the second respondent issued a notice for convening the meeting on 7. 2007 under Section 40-A(3). Thereafter having found that the said notice was not in conformity with the statutory requirement, another notice dated 7. 2007 convening a meeting of the Panchayat on 17. 2007 was issued curing the defects. On that day i.e., on 17. 2007, the motion was moved. However, this Court by its order dated 28. 2007, injuncted the State Government from passing further orders in pursuance of the meeting held on 17. 2007 for the purpose of removal of the first respondent for two weeks i.e., upto 9. 2007. The said order, as could be seen, was passed upon hearing the arguments of Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. The said injunction order was further extended by another two weeks upto 20.9.2007 by order dated 9. 2007 after hearing all the respective parties including the Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent-Government. But the Government Order in G.O.(D) No.426, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TPZ) Department was passed on 19. 2007 on which date the injunction order was still in force against the second respondent. 9. Therefore, the question to be resolved is, whether the impugned Government Order dated 19. 2007 can be regarded as validly passed, when an order of injunction to pass such an order was in force against the second respondent – Government?. 2007 on which date the injunction order was still in force against the second respondent. 9. Therefore, the question to be resolved is, whether the impugned Government Order dated 19. 2007 can be regarded as validly passed, when an order of injunction to pass such an order was in force against the second respondent – Government?. A similar issue came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the case of SURJIT SINGH AND OTHERS VS. HARBANS SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (1995) 6 SCC 50 ), in which the Apex Court enunciated the law as follows: "....As said before, the assignment is by means of a registered deed. The assignment had taken place after the passing of the preliminary decree in which Pritam Singh has been allotted 1/3rd share. His right to property to that extent stood established. A decree relating to immovable property worth more than hundred rupees, if being assigned, was required to be registered. That has instantly been done. It is per se property, for it relates to the immovable property involved in the suit. It clearly and squarely fell within the ambit of the restraint order. In sum, it did not make any appreciable difference whether property per se had been alienated or a decree pertaining to that property. In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. If we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy, When the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seizin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. The Court, in these circumstances has the duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes. Once that is so, Pritam Singh and his assignees, respondents herein, cannot claim to be impleaded as parties on the basis of assignment. Therefore, the assignees-respondents could not have been impleaded by the trial court as parties to the suit, in disobedience of its orders....." 10. From the enunciation of law, it is clear that in defiance of the restraint order, any order is passed and was to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy. From the enunciation of law, it is clear that in defiance of the restraint order, any order is passed and was to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy. When the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seizin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. The Court in these circumstances of the case, has the duty as also the right to treat the order passed in defiance of the restraint order, as having not taken place at all for its purposes. 11. The other contention that on 10. 2007 the writ petition was finally disposed of by not granting the relief sought for in the writ petition and the interim order got merged with the final order. Thus, the Government Order passed by the second respondent would stand cannot be accepted. 12. The very cause of action on which the earlier writ petition came to be filed was, that whether the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat – third respondent herein is competent to issue a second notice under Section 40A or not. The said cause of action was in existence even at the time of disposing off the writ petition, which is evident from the direction issued in the final order, which is extracted above in paragraph No.2. Pursuant to the same, a representation dated 10. 2007 has also been made by the first respondent as stated above. On a reading of the final order dated 10. 2007 made in the writ petition, one could only come to the conclusion that till the second respondent decided the representation to be made by the first respondent as to whether the issuance of second notice is correct or not with reference to Section 40-A or whether the third respondent is empowered to issue second notice as per the provisions of the Act, the resolution made on 17. 2007 should not be proceeded with. If that is not the intention of the Order of the Court, then there remains nothing for directing the Government to consider and pass orders on the representation of the first respondent on merit and in accordance with law. 2007 should not be proceeded with. If that is not the intention of the Order of the Court, then there remains nothing for directing the Government to consider and pass orders on the representation of the first respondent on merit and in accordance with law. Otherwise the Court would have dismissed the writ petition by giving liberty to the writ petitioner to work out her remedy elsewhere. By the order dated 10. 2007, the Court has only relegated the resolution of the lis to the Government in accordance with law and on its own merits. Thus, we are of the view that the Government or the interveners cannot take advantage of the final order passed to proceed further pursuant to the resolution dated 17. 2007. The above reasoning of ours is in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court referred above. 13. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent has reiterated that the Government Order came to be passed only because of the reason that the restraint order against the second respondent – State from proceeding further reached the respondent on 19. 2007. 14. It is not in dispute, rather, it is on record that the injunction order passed by this Court on 28. 2007 was passed after hearing the Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent. That shows the respondent had knowledge of the restraint order. It is settled law that a formal communication of the prohibitory order is not the requirement of law, but it is sufficient, if knowledge of the prohibitory order of injunction is communicated to the person concerned. The Apex Court in the case of HOSHIAR SINGH VS. GURBACHAN SINGH ( AIR 1969 SC 1089 ), has held as follows: "... Where the appellants, who were officers concerned in their official capacity with the allotment and management of land for displaced persons, were informed not merely be interested parties by an Advocate (who was an officer of the Court) that the High Court had passed a valid order staying delivery of possession of certain lands to certain allottees, and a formal application supported by an affidavit was made to that effect, the appellants had no real justification for doubting the authenticity of the order and it was their duty to carry out that order. If the appellants disobeyed the order, there was, in the eye of the law, a willful disobedience of the order of the High Court staying delivery of possession, and they were guilty of contempt of Court. The appellants could not take up the plea that as the order had not been officially communicated to them, they were at liberty to ignore it...." 15. In yet another case, in THE ALIGARH MUNICIPAL BOARD VS. EKKA TONGA MAZDOOR UNION ( AIR 1970 SC 1767 ), the Supreme Court held thus: "..In order to justify action for contempt of court for breach of prohibitive order it is not necessary that the order should have been officially served on the party against whom it is granted, if it is proved that he had knowledge of the exact order aliunde and he knew that it was intended to be enforced. Official communication is not a condition precedent, provided there is no valdi reason to doubt the authenticity of the order conveyed to him....." 16. The respondent – State is a juristic entity and it has been represented before this Court by its counsel while passing the interim order. Hence, it tantamounts that the order has been passed with the knowledge of the State. If the contention of the Government Pleader is accepted, then it would create a havoc in the judicial administration, in the sense, as and when an adverse order or a prohibitory order is passed by the Court and upon knowing about the order, the State can proceed further and ultimately come before the Court and say that the order has not been received. 17. Mr. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of MULRAJ VS. MURTI RAGHONATHJI MAHARAJ reported in (1967) 3 SCR 84 ). That was a case in which an application filed by the landlord for permission to sue for ejectment of his tenant was pending before a Magistrate. The tenant applied for transfer of the proceedings relating to permission from that Magistrates Court. On that transfer application, an order was passed staying further proceedings. The stay order was not communicated to the Magistrate with the result that the Magistrate granted permission to sue. The tenant applied for transfer of the proceedings relating to permission from that Magistrates Court. On that transfer application, an order was passed staying further proceedings. The stay order was not communicated to the Magistrate with the result that the Magistrate granted permission to sue. The respondent filed the suit for ejectment where the appellant raised the plea that the permission granted subsequent to stay order was a nullity as the Magistrate dealing with the matter had lost his jurisdiction thereunder. That contention has been rejected by observing that "an order of injunction is generally issued to a party and it is forbidden from doing certain acts. It is well settled that in such a case the party must have knowledge of the injunction order before it could be penalized for disobeying it. Further, it is equally well-settled that the injunction order not being addressed to the Court, if the Court proceeds in contravention of the injunction order, the proceedings are not a nullity." In the very same judgment, the Court has explained the observation by saying that though the Court which was carrying on execution was not deprived of the jurisdiction the moment a stay order was passed, even though it had no knowledge of it, that does not mean that when the Court got knowledge of it, it was powerless to undo any possible injustice that might have been caused to the party in whose favour the stay order was passed during the period till the Court had knowledge of the stay order. The Supreme Court further observed that "under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the power is always available to the Court executing the decree in such a case when the stay order was brought to the notice it could always act under Section 151 and set aside steps taken between the time the stay order was passed and the time it was brought to the notice if that is necessary in the interest of justice and the party concerned asked it to do so." That is what precisely done in the case by the respondent by filing a writ petition. Hence, we are of the view that the above said judgment instead of advancing the case of the appellants, rather support the case of the respondents. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the case of SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. Hence, we are of the view that the above said judgment instead of advancing the case of the appellants, rather support the case of the respondents. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the case of SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. MACHADO BROTHERS and OTHERS reported in (2004) 11 SCC 168 ) to contend that the writ petition has virtually become infructuous because of the final order passed subsequent to passing of the impugned Government Order. In that case, the Supreme Court held that "interlocutory orders are made in aid of final orders and not vice versa. No interlocutory order would survive after the original proceedings comes to an end". There cannot be any exception to the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in that case. However, the facts of the present case cannot be suited to the facts of the cited case. As already stated, the Government Order came to be passed when the prohibitory order was very much in force. The subsequent event of disposal of the writ petition is also cannot be regarded as dismissal of the writ petition, rather it can be regarded as transferring of the lis from this Court to the Government for determination. 19. Hence, for all the above reasons, we find that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned single and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.