Judgment :- This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 24. 2004, made in W.P.M.P.No.13962 of 2004, in W.P.No.11871 of 2004. 2. It has been submitted that the petitioner Society had purchased 43.19 acres of land in various survey numbers for the purpose of providing housing facilities for its members. It had also obtained the approval from the Local Planning Authority in D.T.P.2/70. As per the approved lay out, 346 house sites were earmarked and sufficient space was provided for laying of streets, building drainage and other facilities. Further, an extent of 27,000 sq.ft, in S.No.328, had been reserved, within the approved lay out, for the purpose of constructing a primary school. The patta of the land also stands in the name of the petitioner Society, till date. 3. It has also been submitted that the petitioner Society is the absolute owner of the property and it had taken necessary steps for the construction of the primary school within the approved lay out. However, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had alienated the land to other persons to construct the primary school since the petitioner Society was not in a position to do so, due to paucity of funds. While so, the respondent Municipality had called for a tender for construction of the building and it had also issued work orders to the contractor for the construction of the building. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.11871 of 2004. This court was pleased to pass an order of interim direction to the respondent to maintain status quo, in respect of the land in S.No.328, Nilgiri Therkkuthottam, Thanjavur Town, belonging to the petitioner Society, by an order, dated 24. 2004, made in W.P.M.P.No.13962 of 2004, in W.P.No.11871 of 2004. 4. It has been further stated that even after the receipt of the order passed by this Court, the respondent Municipality has proceeded with the construction of the building in violation of the order, dated 24. 2004. Therefore, a contempt notice had been sent by the counsel for the petitioner, on 25. 2004, and it had been served on the respondent Municipality, on 25. 2004. Even thereafter, the construction activities were carried on by the respondent. 2004. Therefore, a contempt notice had been sent by the counsel for the petitioner, on 25. 2004, and it had been served on the respondent Municipality, on 25. 2004. Even thereafter, the construction activities were carried on by the respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present contempt petition before this Court to punish the respondent for contempt of Court for having violated the order passed by this Court, on 24. 2004. 5. At the stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, it has been submitted that the contempt petition had been admitted and it was ordered that the notice shall be served on the respondent, by an order, dated 17. 2004. Thereafter, the notice sent to the contemner had been returned unserved, since he had taken charge as the Municipal Commissioner of Ambattur Municipality. When the notice was attempted to be served on the respondent, at the new address, he had retired from service and therefore, the notice was returned unserved, once again. In such circumstances, the Registry had requested the petitioner to furnish the present address of the respondent for the service of the notice. However, the petitioner has not been in a position to furnish the correct address of the respondent, till date. In such circumstances, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs.