Judgment :- The above contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for disobeying the orders of this Court, dated 21. 2001, made in W.P.No.21872 of 1993. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had acquired the petitioners property with an extent of 2 grounds and 518 sq. ft. at No.94, Lattice Bridge Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai. 3. The petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents therein to allot a plot to the petitioner under the ex-owner category in the Thiruvanmiyur neighbourhood on the ground that the Housing Board can allot any plot to the petitioner under the ex-owners category. In the writ petition in W.P.No.21872 of 1993, orders were passed by this Court, on 21. 2001, which reads as follows: "The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot a plot to the petitioner under the ex-owner category in the Thiruvanmiyur Neighbourhood. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to make a representation to allot vacant plot or flat under the ex-owner category. As the petitioners land has been acquired by the respondent, without going into the merits of the case, it is suffice to direct the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent for allotment of vacant plot or flat under the ex-owner category within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when such representation is made, the respondent is directed to dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of representation. 3. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs." 4. It is submitted by the petitioner that in spite of several reminders, the respondent had not passed any order in accordance with the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 21. 2001. 5. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that he was tendering an unconditional apology in case this Court finds that the respondent had, in some way, committed contempt of Court. 6. It is also stated on behalf of the respondent that orders had been passed, on 27. 2001, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. 2001. 5. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that he was tendering an unconditional apology in case this Court finds that the respondent had, in some way, committed contempt of Court. 6. It is also stated on behalf of the respondent that orders had been passed, on 27. 2001, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. In view of the further representation made by the petitioner, a letter, dated 111. 2002, had also been sent to the petitioner. 7. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the orders said to have been passed by the respondent, on 27. 2001 and the subsequent communication, dated 111. 2002, had not been received by the petitioner till date, there is nothing on record to refute the claims made on behalf of the respondent. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent and on a perusal of the records placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out a case to punish the respondent for contempt of Court. In such circumstances, the contempt petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Sub. Application No.354 of 2006 is also dismissed. No costs.