Judgment :- The above contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents 1 to 3 for having committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the order of this Court, dated 6. 2006, made in W.P.No.17072 of 2006. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that he is the owner of the premises bearing old Door No.10/1, New Door No.36, Yemi Street, Purasawalkam, Chennai. The third respondent is the owner of the premises bearing old Door No.11 in the said street. Since the third respondent had attempted to put up a construction unauthorisedly, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.6361 of 2002, on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for a declaration declaring the easementary right of the petitioner. .3. A written representation, dated 20.10.2003, had also been sent to the first respondent in this regard stating that the construction put up by the third respondent is causing obstruction to the petitioner. Since no action had been taken by the concerned authorities, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.17072 of 2006. This Court, by an order, dated 6. 2006, had disposed of the said writ petition. Paragraph 4 of the said order reads as follows: ."4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion to give direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.5.2006 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Till then, the third respondent is hereby directed not to deviate from the original construction." 4. It is further stated that in spite of the order passed by this Court, on 6. 2006, the first respondent had not complied with the direction issued therein within the time stipulated in the said order. .5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had submitted that the first respondent had received the representation of the petitioner, dated 20.5.2006, only on 26. 2006 and the final order had been passed, on 18. 2006 by the first respondent after inspecting the property, on 8. 2006. Thus, the first respondent had complied with the direction issued by this Court by its order, dated 6. 2006. 6. 2006 and the final order had been passed, on 18. 2006 by the first respondent after inspecting the property, on 8. 2006. Thus, the first respondent had complied with the direction issued by this Court by its order, dated 6. 2006. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that the third respondent had constructed ground and first floor with valid sanctioned plan and in the second floor iron rods with column were raised and some minor deviations were made in the ground and first floor. Therefore, a notice, dated 10. 2006, had been issued to the third respondent, under Section 256(A) of The Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, to seize the building materials. With regard to the deviation, a notice had been issued, under Section 256(1) & (2) of The Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. On 12. 2006, a notice under Section 256(3) of The Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, was pasted on the wall of the third respondent and also signatures from the witnesses were obtained following due process of law. It was also stated that further action would be taken against the third respondent following the procedures established by law, to demolish the deviated portion. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it has been submitted that the building in question has been built only in accordance with the sanctioned plan with some minor variations. The suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.6361 of 2002, had been dismissed on 19. 2005, and the appeal in A.S.No.489 of 2005, was also dismissed, on 14. 2006. Due to the pendency of the said suit and the appeal, there was some delay in completing the construction, as sanctioned. However, by 15. 1996, the entire construction had been completed. Only on 12. 2007, when the contempt petition was listed, the third respondent had obtained a copy of the writ petition from the counsel representing the third respondent, along with a copy of the order, dated 6. 2006. The third respondent was in Dubai between 15. 2005 and 18. 2006 and he was on a pilgrimage to Mecca between 211. 2006 and 1. 2007. After the order, dated 6. 2006, had been passed, no construction had taken place contrary to the said order. 8. 2006. The third respondent was in Dubai between 15. 2005 and 18. 2006 and he was on a pilgrimage to Mecca between 211. 2006 and 1. 2007. After the order, dated 6. 2006, had been passed, no construction had taken place contrary to the said order. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in a position to show that the order passed by this Court, on 6. 2006, had been served on the respondents, on 16. 2006, as alleged by him. Further, it could not be shown by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the third respondent had put up some constructions after receipt of the order passed by this Court, on 6. 2006. 9. From the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court, it is not clear as to when the alleged offending constructions have been put up by the third respondent. Further, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent that a writ appeal had been filed in W.A.No.14159 of 2007 and the Division Bench of this Court had passed an order, on 16. 2007, which is as follows: "This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner against the Notice No.2703 dated 8th February 2007 issued by the 2nd respondent in exercise of power conferred under Section 378 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act (Act IV of 1919). By the said notice, the petitioner was asked to demolish the deviated portion of the construction made in premises No.3/11, Yemi Street, Division-101, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai-600 007. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the writ petitioner already demolished the deviated portion and the impugned notice was uncalled for. 3. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the Corporation, the petitioner has removed part of the deviated portion and not full. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that if the petitioner has not removed the full deviated portion of construction, it is open to the competent authority to inspect the premises and to find out the portion, which is to be demolished. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that if the petitioner has not removed the full deviated portion of construction, it is open to the competent authority to inspect the premises and to find out the portion, which is to be demolished. As suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the competent authority of the Corporation is given liberty to bring to the notice of the petitioner the deviated portion, if any, after taking measurements in accordance with the approved plan. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observation. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. There will no order as to costs." 10. It is further submitted that pursuant to the said order, dated 16. 2007, made in W.A.No.14159 of 2007, the first respondent Corporation had initiated appropriate action against the third respondent, in accordance with law. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no case has been made out by the petitioner to punish the respondents for contempt of Court. Hence, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs.