ORDER: These 12 contempt petitions were filed by 10 petitioners seeking to punish the respondents for having allegedly disobeyed a common order dated 26.04.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.7135, 7314 to 7324 of 2011. Contempt Petition No.904 and 906 were filed by the same petitioner viz., V.Subramanian and Contempt Petition Nos.907 and 908 were filed by the same petitioner viz., S.Syed Jani. 2. These contempt petitions are classic example of the petitioners abusing the process of law. They have been filing series of writ petitions without any success. The number of petitions filed by them and the different orders obtained by them will clearly show their lack of bonafides and their exercise in filing innumerable petitions is a classic example of virtual raid on the Court. 3. When these contempt petitions came up on 29.06.2011, statutory notices were issued to the respondents. However, in Contempt Petition Nos.901, 902 and 903 of 2011, there is no record found showing any notices were issued in those contempt petitions. Subsequently, when the matters came up on 27.07.2011, this Court recorded that N.V.Kanniappan, Executive Officer, the first respondent and K.S.Mastan, Chairman of the Town Panchayat, the second respondent had appeared in person and their presence were dispensed with. They were also directed to file an affidavit regarding compliance of the order and also to explain as to why they fix the rent in question. 4. In Sub.Appln.No.391 of 2011 in Contempt Petition No.897 of 2011 filed by P.Murugesan, this Court granted interim injunction restraining the Town Panchayat from allotting Shop No.1 in the Shopping Complex, Gingee Bus Stand to any third parties until further orders. In Sub.Appln.No.395 of 2011 in Contempt Petition No.905 of 2011 filed by one V.Venkatachalam, a similar order was granted restraining the Panchayat from allotting Shop No.12 until further orders. 5. On notice from this Court, the first respondent has filed a common counter affidavit dated 11.10.2012 together with supporting documents in the form of typed set. 6. Heard the arguments of Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Dhandapani learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The petitioners claim that they were vegetable vendors doing business right from the year 1979 in a land adjacent to the bus stand at Gingee. The land was belonging to an individual, which was leased out to the Panchayat. 6. Heard the arguments of Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Dhandapani learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The petitioners claim that they were vegetable vendors doing business right from the year 1979 in a land adjacent to the bus stand at Gingee. The land was belonging to an individual, which was leased out to the Panchayat. It was also claimed by them after the expiry of lease, they were allowed to put up a temporary structure near the bus stand. During the year 1982, due to a fire accident, the structures got collapsed and vendors were allowed to put up new structure at their own cost. During the year 1984, due to heavy flood, the entire structures were washed away and once again, they were permitted to put up their own structure. The Gingee Town Panchayat was collecting rent from the Vendors. Every three years, the rentals were increased. During the year 2008, when the Panchayat attempted to evict the petitioners from the daily vegetable market at Gingee, they filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.Nos.11550 to 1563 of 2008. They claimed that a direction should be issued to the Town Panchayat granting lease and renew the lease in terms of G.O.Ms.No.92 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007. But for reasons best known, they withdrew those writ petitions with liberty to file fresh petitions. This Court by an order dated 30.01.2008 allowed the writ petitions to be withdrawn giving liberty to renew their claim. 8. Subsequently, the petitioners once again filed a batch of writ petitions being W.P.Nos.24536 to 24549 of 2008, seeking for a direction to the Town Panchayat to allot specific permanent place for the petitioners to run the business of vegetable and fruit vending which was being carried out in the market adjoining the bus stand. However, this Court disposed of all the writ petitions but with certain directions. But the main relief claimed by them was not granted as can be seen from the common order dated 07.10.2008. It is necessary to refer to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said order, which is as follows:- "3. However, this Court disposed of all the writ petitions but with certain directions. But the main relief claimed by them was not granted as can be seen from the common order dated 07.10.2008. It is necessary to refer to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said order, which is as follows:- "3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents refuted this contention by pointing out that they are not contemplating to put up the shops for fresh lease to others by auction, but they have a scheme for expansion of Bus Stand and for construction of new shops. According to him the G.O. cited above shall not be applicable to such circumstances. 4. In view of the earnest activity undertaken by the local body for the improvement of the bus stand by making such facilities, that cannot be thwarted by the petitioners/shop keepers. I record the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that there is no attempt to evict the petitioners for re-auction, but the attempt is only to evict them from the existing shops and construct new shops in the place where old shops exist. In such an event, interest of justice would be served to both the parties, by giving direction to the second respondent to give preference, in the matter of allotment of shops after the construction to the persons who had been having shops and who have renewed the licence till the filing of the writ petitions." 9. Subsequently, the first contempt petitioner viz., P.Murugesan filed W.P.No.18911 of 2009 seeking to set aside an order dated 30.12.2008 sent by the Town Panchayat to the District Collector and after setting aside the same sought for a direction to allot a shop in the newly constructed shop at the Gingee Bus Stand. In that writ petition filed by the first contempt petitioner, this Court while ordering notice on admission granted interim injunction restraining the Panchayat from notifying the auction proceedings without identifying the shops for preferential allotment. 10. Similarly, other petitioners subsequently came to file writ petitions being W.P.Nos.22643 to 22650 of 2009 with a similar prayer. In that writ petition filed by the first contempt petitioner, this Court while ordering notice on admission granted interim injunction restraining the Panchayat from notifying the auction proceedings without identifying the shops for preferential allotment. 10. Similarly, other petitioners subsequently came to file writ petitions being W.P.Nos.22643 to 22650 of 2009 with a similar prayer. In those cases, this Court restricted the relief only in respect of 9 shops out of 21 shops built by the Town Panchayat in the Bus Stand and the Town Panchayat was allowed to put up the remaining shops for public auction according to law in M.P.No.2 of 2009. 11. Thereafter, four other petitioners filed W.P.Nos.4730 to 4733 of 2010, seeking for a direction to the Panchayat to allot two shops in the newly constructed shops at the Gingee bus stand. Pending the writ petitions, similar injunction was sought for and that was granted by this Court on 09.03.2010. Even during the pendency of these proceedings, one R.Saravanan filed a writ petition being W.P.No.8994 of 2010, to set aide the notification and after setting aside the same sought for a direction to the Panchayat not to conduct the auction on 28.04.010 or any other date. This Court dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 30.04.2010 and in paragraphs 6 and 7 gave the following reasons:- "6. This Court is not inclined to accept the stand of the petitioner as stated above for the following reasons:- i) The auction notice challenged in the earlier case is dated 12.03.2010 and the date of auction was fixed on 18.03.2010. The period between the date of publication and the date of auction is only five days. Hence, Rule 52.6(4)(b)(ii) of the Municipal Manual was invoked, the auction notice was set aside and a direction was issued to the respondents therein to proceed with the auction following the procedure therein to proceed with the auction following the procedure prescribed. The facts in the present case is different. ii) In the present case, the auction notification was published on 14.04.2010 for the auction to be held on 28.04.2010. The number of days between the date of publication and the date of auction is thirteen days. The facts in the present case is different. ii) In the present case, the auction notification was published on 14.04.2010 for the auction to be held on 28.04.2010. The number of days between the date of publication and the date of auction is thirteen days. Clause (iii) of Rule 52.6(4)(b) of the Municipal Manual provides for minimum interval of 10 days for auction that is adjourned to the 15th March or to a date prior to the 15th March, (i.e.) from an earlier date. (iii) Clause (iv) to Rule 52.6(4)(b) of Municipal Manual provides for sale of items mentioned in Clause (i) and (ii) adjourned to a date after the 15th March, with minimum interval as may be fixed by the Executive Authority. (iv) In this case, admittedly, the publication is in respect of auction after 15th March, 2010. Hence, the Executive Authority has the power to fix the time limit, in terms of clause (iv) of Rule 52.6(4)(b) as above. (v) In the case where the auction is held prior to 15th of March and once it is adjourned to another date after 15th March, for some reason or other, the minimum period can be fixed by the Executive Authority at his discretion. This is provided under clause (iv) of Rule 52.6(4)(b) of the Municipal Manual. In all other cases a minimum period is fixed for different category as could be seen from the various clauses (i) to (iv) of the above Rule. (vi) In the earlier case, the Auction Notification issued on 12.03.2010 was set aside by this Court for non compliance of Clause (ii) to Rule 52.6(4)(b) of the Municipal Manual. That position does not arise in the present case as the auction after 15th march. Therefore, the earlier order of this Court dated 30.03.2010 in W.P.No.5369 of 2010 will not apply to the facts of the present case. (vii) Furthermore, there is a public notice already issued in this regard and that has been set aside by this Court for breach of a particular provision. The further public notice as per clause (iv) of Rule 52.6(4)(b) satisfies the requirement of vide publicity in respect of auction. In any event clause (iv) of Rule provides for such a contingency. (vii) Furthermore, there is a public notice already issued in this regard and that has been set aside by this Court for breach of a particular provision. The further public notice as per clause (iv) of Rule 52.6(4)(b) satisfies the requirement of vide publicity in respect of auction. In any event clause (iv) of Rule provides for such a contingency. (viii) In the present case, the time limit fixed by the Executive Officer cannot be faulted as he is entitled to fix any date at his discretion as per the above Rule so long as the sale of items mentioned in Clause (i) and (ii) is adjourned to a date after 15th of March for whatever reason. 7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to accept the stand of the petitioner. Finding no merit, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 12. Therefore, the permission given to the Panchayat to allot the shops by public auction was made final as there was no challenge made to the order by filing an appeal. It is also interesting to note that the petitioner in the writ petition is not one of the petitioners in the earlier proceedings, but it is suffice to state the Municipal Property can be allotted only by public auction. 13. Subsequently, in W.P.Nos.18911, 22643 to 22650 of 2009 and in the miscellaneous petitions in W.P.Nos.4730 to 4733 of 2010, in paragraphs 2 and 3, this Court held as follows:- "2. Heard Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, who states that in the affidavit filed by the respondents dated 06.04.2010 concession by way of 25% reduction in deposit is granted which may be increased to 50% and in such an event, the petitioners without prejudice to their rights in the writ petitions will participate in the auction. He prayed that the confirmation should be subject to further orders of this Court. 3. Considering the larger public interest namely to safeguard the Panchayat from financial crisis due to borrowal from the Financial Corporation for the construction of the shops and taking note of the public interest involved in construction of new shops, the respondents are permitted to proceed with the auction in respect of the newly constructed shops forthwith as per the procedure and in accordance with law. The confirmation of the auction is stayed until further order of this Court. The petitioners are entitled to participate in the auction proceedings without prejudice to their rights in the writ petitions." 14. Aggrieved by the said order permitting the Panchayat to proceed with the auction, the petitioners preferred writ appeals against the interim order in W.A.Nos.811 and 955 to 964 of 2010. When these writ appeals came up before the Division Bench, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they did not press the appeals and they are willing to argue the writ petitions before the learned single Judge. The Division Bench permitted them to withdraw the writ appeals and also directed the early hearing of the writ petitions by recording the reasons that the Town Panchayat has already obtained a loan of Rs.55 lakhs for constructing shops and since the confirmation has been stayed, they were not able to proceed further and are suffering financial loss of Rs.4 lakhs every month. 15. After the said direction, the writ petitions came up for final disposal and were disposed of by a common order dated 05.01.2011. In that common order, the learned Judge referred to the earlier common order passed by this Court on 07.10.2008 in W.P.Nos.24536 to 24549 of 2008 and thereafter, in paragraphs 7 to 9 observed as follows:- "7. Thus the learned Special Government Pleader refuted that they are contemplating to put up the shops for fresh lease to others by auction but they have a scheme for expansion of the bus stand and for construction of new shops. Recording his submission, this Curt felt that in the interest of justice there can be a direction to the Executive Officer to give preference in the matter of allotment of shops in the new constructions to the persons who were having shops and who have renewed the license till the filing of the writ petitions. This order made it very clear that after construction of the new shops, preference shall be given to the petitioners who are having shops and who had renewed license till the filing of the writ petition. Alleging that the said order requires clarification, the respondent has filed a clarification petition. Those applications were taken up along with these writ petitions and were dismissed. 8. In view of the same, the respondent has to give preference to the petitioners. Alleging that the said order requires clarification, the respondent has filed a clarification petition. Those applications were taken up along with these writ petitions and were dismissed. 8. In view of the same, the respondent has to give preference to the petitioners. The order made by this Court referred to above was not challenged before this Court by filing a writ appeal. Thus the said order has become final. The order made thereunder was passed on 07.10.2008 and the clarification petitions have been filed only on 19.10.2010. Perhaps, the respondent is trying to circumvent the orders passed by this Court which has been referred to above. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances and also in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.24536 to 24549 of 2008 dated 07.10.2008, this Court would be constrained to direct the respondent to give preference in the allotment of new shops to the petitioners as was directed by this Court." 16. By these series of litigations started from January 2008 till January 2011, over a period of three years, the petitioners were not able to achieve and get any substantive relief. On the other hand, this Court consistently upheld the action of the Town Panchayat from proceeding with the construction of new shops and evicting the petitioners from the existing place and also allotting the shops only on the basis of public auction. If at all any relief said to have been achieved by the petitioners was that they may have a preferential right for the allotment of the shops. But even for getting that limited relief, the petitioners have successfully stalled the Town Panchayat from allotting the shops to others over which they were claiming preferential allotment, thereby making the Panchayat to loose a revenue for over four years. 17. Not satisfied with these proceedings, the petitioners once again came before this Court with another batch of writ petitions, being W.P.Nos.7135, 7314 to 7324 of 2011, seeking to challenge the proceedings of the Town Panchayat dated 24.02.2011 and 08.03.2011 and after setting aside the same so far as it related to fixation of exorbitant annual lease amount sought for a consequential direction to forbear the respondents from allotting shop Nos.1, 14, 11, 8, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 6 and 7 (12 shops) to any third party. Though the writ petitions were once again disposed of by a common order dated 26.04.2011, at that time, this Court was informed that one or two allottees have accepted to pay the amount that was intimated and one of them by name Yasothaiyammal, who was petitioner in W.P.No.22644 of 2009 got the allotment of the shop on payment. Notwithstanding the same, this Court in Paragraphs 9 and 11 observed as follows:- "9. On going through the impugned proceedings, this Court is however, unable to find any reason as to how the amount has been fixed in respect of each shops allotted to the petitioners pursuant to the orders of this Court. Admittedly, in all these cases, the petitioners have to be given preferential allotment. As to how, the amount should be paid for occupying the shops is a matter for the respondents to decide, on the basis of relevant parameters that will be available to them. The allottes should also be informed of the basis on which the amounts are fixed, as these petitioners are preferentially allotted as per orders of this Court and not by way of public auction. Since the respondents accepted the order of this Court and allotted the shops, it is incumbent on them to justify the amount they demand for the occupation of the shops. On going through the impugned order, this Court is unable to find any reason whatsoever given and the parameter the basis on which the amount has been fixed. In any event the order is not supported by reasons. In the counter affidavit, the basis for fixing the amount has been explained. 11. In view of the settled position of law this court is inclined to set aside that portion of the order, fixing the amount for allotment of shops as one bereft of reasons. The impugned order insofar as fixing the amount allotted to the shops is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authorities, to redetermine the amount payable by the petitioners by recording reasons. The petitioners shall be given an opportunity to make their representations on the issue before an order is passed. These writ petitions are allowed to the extent as above. No costs" 18. The petitioners shall be given an opportunity to make their representations on the issue before an order is passed. These writ petitions are allowed to the extent as above. No costs" 18. Alleging that even after the direction to fix appropriate rent, the Panchayat has not fixed rent and are claiming exorbitant amount, contempt petitions came to be filed as noted already. It is the stand of the petitioners that notwithstanding the direction given by this Court, the respondents have once again issued notice fixing the bid amount as was done in the earlier occasion as rent and called upon to submit their objection. The petitioners also submitted their objections stating that in the same place other vendors are paying only Rs.1500/- per month as rent but for the petitioners shop a sum of Rs.23,000/- per month was demanded. The second respondent has not granted opportunity to submit documents and for appointing an Engineer from PWD Department to fix the rent for the shop. 19. In the counter affidavit filed by the Town Panchayat, it was stated by them that on 28.04.2010, public auction was conducted and large number of persons participated. 21 persons were successful bidders for 21 shops including Yasodhayamamal, who was one of the petitioners in the earlier batch of writ petitions. She being a successful bidder deposited the lease amount of Rs.1,87,000/-as determined in the open auction and she had taken possession of Shop No.4 and running her vegetable shop. Similarly, one P.S.Ali Sahib, who was also the petitioner in W.P.No.24544 of 2008 covered by an order dated 07.10.2008 deposited the ease amount of Rs.2,81,000/- though he was not a successful bidder. But since he had deposited the entire lease amount he was allotted Shop No.1. It is stated that all the successful bidders pursuant to the auction held on 28.04.2010 deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with the Town Panchayat. Auction was held pursuant to the liberty given by this Court. Though the petitioners have challenged those interim order in writ appeals, but for reasons best known, they withdrew those writ appeals. It is stated that all the successful bidders pursuant to the auction held on 28.04.2010 deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with the Town Panchayat. Auction was held pursuant to the liberty given by this Court. Though the petitioners have challenged those interim order in writ appeals, but for reasons best known, they withdrew those writ appeals. Though the Town Panchayat filed a clarification petition of the order dated 07.10.2008 in W.P.No.24545 of 2008 as to whether shops should be allotted by public auction in terms of G.O.(2D) No.85 MA & WS Department or without any public auction, the said clarification petition was dismissed with a direction to the Panchayat to follow the earlier common order passed by this Court dated 07.10.2008. It was after obtaining legal opinion, the Town Panchayat issued notice to the petitioners calling upon them to pay the bid amount in order to give preferential allotment. In fact the earlier direction for preference in the matter of allotment was complied with by collecting a lesser amount of deposit of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioners whereas the other bidders deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Even in the subsequent proceedings, the direction to fix the amount for allotment of the shop was set aside only on the ground that it was bereft of any reason. The Town Panchayat was directed to re-determine the amount payable by the petitioners by recording reasons. After the order was passed by this Court, amounts were re-determined by recording reasons and once again notice was sent to the petitioners for their explanation. However, the petitioners have chosen to file contempt petitions. 20. It was stated that the Town Panchayat has no power to fix rent adopting PWD norms ignoring G.O.(2D) 85, MA and WS Department, dated 19.07.2000. Besides number of judgments of this Court has directed the local bodies and the public authorities to allot public property through public auction only. The earlier license given to the petitioners had expired as early as in the year 1992 and there was no renewal in favour of the petitioners. The Town Panchayat was ready to give preference to the petitioners if they renew their license for the shops, but they have not renewed the license for the shops till date. The earlier license given to the petitioners had expired as early as in the year 1992 and there was no renewal in favour of the petitioners. The Town Panchayat was ready to give preference to the petitioners if they renew their license for the shops, but they have not renewed the license for the shops till date. Since the petitioners have not renewed their license since 1992 and there being no power to fix rent as per PWD norms on a yearly basis, no preferential allotment can be claimed by them for fixing rent for the shops. The shops were constructed during the year 2008 and 12 shops out of the 21 shops constructed are lying vacant and there is huge revenue loss to the Panchayat as a result of which the loan amount availed from the financial institutions remain unpaid and the interest amount is accumulating. The Panchayat is in financial crisis due to revenue loss of about Rs.3,00,000/- every month and was not able to repay the loan obtained from TUFIDCO. Therefore, Town Panchayat sought for permission to hand over the shops to the two successful bidders who have already paid the bid amount and the remaining successful bidders who are ready to deposit the bid amount. 21. Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned counsel for the respondents gave a list containing the bid amount quoted by various bidders in respect of 21 shops. As can be seen from the list, in respect of Shop Nos.1 and 4, persons who paid higher amount and who had deposited the amount are the original petitioners covered by order dated 07.10.2008. It is stated that in respect of the shops for which amounts were quoted by successful bidders if the petitioners are willing to pay the amount, they are willing to allot the shops to them irrespective of their not quoting the higher amount and not participating in the auction. The term preferential allotment can only mean when there was successful bidders quoting amounts and the petitioners are willing to match in preference to those persons, the petitioners will be allotted shops. The stand of the respondents is clearly within the parameters of law and the respondents cannot be said to have violated any of the previous orders of this Court. The stand of the respondents is clearly within the parameters of law and the respondents cannot be said to have violated any of the previous orders of this Court. As stated already, the petitioners are filing case after case and are stalling the Panchayat from proceeding with a fair method of allotting the shop constructed by borrowing money from TUFIDCO. There is no law which requires Town Panchayat to subsidize the shop only because the petitioners were earlier carrying on business on adhoc basis in the said place. On the other hand, the petitioners' legal contentions has been clearly rejected in all the writ petitions. As rightly contended there is no rational basis for directing the Panchayat to fix the rent as per PWD norms. On the other hand, even in G.O.No.92 MA & WS Department dated 30.07.2007, the municipal shops can be allotted towards lease and for the first time it has to be done only by auction. 22. Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2011) 9 SCC 195 [Rakesh Sharma and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others]for contending that in that case while allotting the shop, direction given by the High Court was to be complied within the parameters of statutory provisions considering the interest of general public as well as shop keepers. The Court also reserved the right of the old shop keepers to get shops allotted in the new shopping complex. But in that case there is no discussion regarding any rental arrangement. On the contrary, in the present case the Town Panchayat was not going away from the direction issued by this Court to give preference in the allotment. In fact the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners Rakesh Sharma (cited supra) turned down on the facts of its own case as seen from paragraph 39 of the order. In view of the various orders passed by the High Court on the basis of the consensus of the parties, with the consent of the shopkeepers, a committee was appointed and a direction was issued for providing an alternate place to the shopkeepers till new construction is completed and they were also assured of accommodation on the ground floor of the new market complex. It is not clear as to how the said judgment is in any way help the case of the petitioners. 23. Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned counsel for the respondents referred to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in AIR 2005 Madras 264 [DCW Ltd., v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others] for contending that the public property is not largesse which could be given by the Government to anybody. When persons were given only temporary occupation, they cannot continue even after 12 years. Such persons have no monopoly over the land, which belongs to the Government. Once a contract has been granted for a specific period, then on the expiry of the period, there is no question of automatic renewal of the grant and there must be a fresh public auction/public tender after which alone a fresh grant can be given, otherwise, it will be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 24. Even the case cited by the respondents has no application to the case on hand. As in the present case, already this Court has upheld the right of the Town Panchayat to go in for new construction of shopping complex and allotting those shops by public auction. The petitioners were only given preference in the matter of allotment. When the petitioners were asked to pay specified lease amount, the only technical ground on which it was set aside was that it did not give reasons. Subsequently, the Town Panchayat has given reasons and clearly stated that it cannot be fixed on the basis of any fixed rent basis by the PWD norms and can be done only by public auction. This stand of the Town Panchayat cannot be found fault with especially when this Court has directed them to go in for auction and the challenge made by the petitioners in the writ appeals were dismissed as not pressed. Out of 21 shops, 12 shop keepers are paying as per bid amount and the petitioners cannot be shown concession even though they have opted to occupy the shops in the same complex and the Panchayat has been more than fair in granting preferential allotment to the petitioners. 25. Out of 21 shops, 12 shop keepers are paying as per bid amount and the petitioners cannot be shown concession even though they have opted to occupy the shops in the same complex and the Panchayat has been more than fair in granting preferential allotment to the petitioners. 25. If the petitioners do not pay the bid amount quoted in respect of the shops for which already there is successful bidders within four weeks, the Town Panchayat is at liberty to proceed to allot the shop to the successful bidders. Town Panchayat is also permitted to allot one shop each to Yasothaiyammal and P.S.Ali Sahib as stated in the counter affidavit without waiting for any further time loss. 26. In the light of the above, all the contempt petitions will stand dismissed. Connected Sub-Applications are closed.