Judgment :- These contempt petitions have been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for contempt of Court for willful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 24. 2003, made in W.P.Nos.12013 and 12014 of 2003. 2. The petitioners have stated that they are the owners of plot No.64 in Contempt Petition No.1005 of 2004 and Plot No.64-C, in Contempt Petition No.1006 of 2004, Kallikuppam Road, Venkatapuram, Ambattur, Chennai, having purchased the same in the year, 1991, by a sale deed bearing No.4900/91, registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ambattur. 3. The petitioners have further stated that the plots have been duly approved by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority vide approval No.L.R.No.D2/L/2148/87, dated 6. 87, PPD/LO No.60/87. As per the approved Madras Metropolitan Development Authority layout plan, the entrance to the petitioners property in Contempt Petition No.1005 of 2004 is through a 12 feet wide common passage from the 40 feet wide Kallikuppam Road, and as per the approved Metropolitan Development Authority layout plan, the Eastern side of the petitioners property in Contempt Petition No.1006 of 2004 is the 40 feet wide Kallikuppam Road. The petitioners have put up houses in the said plots and are residing in it. .4. It has been further stated that the eastern side of the properties of the petitioners facing Kallikuppam Road was unauthorisedly occupied by encroachers and unauthorised pucca shops had been constructed completely cutting off the entrance to the petitioners property from Kallikuppam Road. Even the 12 feet wide common passage from Kallikuppam Road has been blocked by the encroachers leaving only a space of 8 feet. Therefore, the petitioners had sent a representation to the respondent, on 12. 2002, requesting that necessary action be taken to remove the encroachments. Another representation was sent by the petitioners, on 1. 2003. Since no action had been taken by the respondent, the petitioners had filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.12013 and 12014 of 2003, for issuance of writs of Mandamus to direct the respondents therein to consider the representations of the petitioners, dated 12. 2002 and 1. 2003 and to remove the illegal encroachments. By an order, dated 24. 2003, this Court had passed the final order in the said writ petitions. .5. Paragraph 3 of the said order reads as follows: ."3. 2002 and 1. 2003 and to remove the illegal encroachments. By an order, dated 24. 2003, this Court had passed the final order in the said writ petitions. .5. Paragraph 3 of the said order reads as follows: ."3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent is directed to pass orders on the representation dated 12. 2002 and 1. 2003 on merits and in accordance with law. The matters shall be posted on 16. 2003 for the respondents to report compliance of this order." .6. It has been stated that the respondent had filed a report, dated 30.10.2003, stating that notices had been issued to the encroachers, under Section 182 of the District Municipality Act, 1920. Since the encroachers had obtained an order of interim stay in W.P.Nos.532 to 534 of 2003, no further action could be taken against them. However, this Court by an order, dated 30.12.2003, made in W.P.No.532 to 534 of 2003, had held as follows: ."6. Inasmuch as the direction to the Municipality to take action to evict the encroachers including the petitioners was only in accordance with law, there cannot be any order, which runs contra to the earlier order granted in the writ petition No.38493 of 2002, forbearing the respondent Municipality to evict the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the respondent Municipality, before taking any action for evicting the petitioners, shall hear the petitioners claim that the lands are classified as Natham Poromboke. On satisfying that the lands belong to the Municipality, further action can be taken up by the respondent in accordance with the notice already issued." .7. In spite of the order passed by this Court, on 30.12.2003, the respondent had not taken any action so far to comply with the directions of this Court issued in W.P.Nos.12013 and 12014 of 2003, by its order, dated 24. 2003. In such circumstances, the above writ petitioners have filed the above contempt petitions. 8. The respondent has filed counter affidavits stating that he was tendering his unconditional apology in case this Court had considered any act of omission or commission committed by him to be amounting to contempt of Court. 9. Paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit in Contempt petition No.1005 of 2004 reads as follows: 3. I humbly submit that our office received the representations dated 12. 2002 and 1. 9. Paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit in Contempt petition No.1005 of 2004 reads as follows: 3. I humbly submit that our office received the representations dated 12. 2002 and 1. 2003 from the petitioner and his brother namely Balaji. The then Commissioner in charge has sent a reply in R.O.C.No.17472/02/F1, dated 6. 2003, to both the petitioner and his brother K.Balaji. The letter had been received by K.Balaji on 16. 2003 for himself and for his brother K.Ravichandran, the petitioner in the above petition. 10. Paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit in Contempt petition No.1006 of 2004 reads as follows: 3. I humbly submit that our office received the representations dated 12. 2002 and 1. 2003 from the petitioner and his brother namely Balaji. The then Commissioner in charge has sent a reply in R.O.C.No.17472/02/F1, dated 6. 2003, to both the petitioner and his brother K.Ravichandran. The letter had been received by K.Balaji on 16. 2003 for himself and for his brother K.Ravichandran, the petitioner in W.P.No.12013 of 2003. 11. In view of the above submissions and in view of the fact that the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 24. 2003, had been complied with by the respondent, this Court is of the considered view that there is no wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 24. 2003, made in W.P.Nos.12013 and 12014 of 2003, by the respondent as alleged by the petitioner. Hence, the contempt petitions stand dismissed. No costs.