ORDER 1. These writ petitions and Contempt petition came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon’ble Chief Justice vide order dated 25.07.2012. All these writ petitions as well as the contempt petitions are filed by the same petitioner, which is the management of a private School at Kancheepuram. 2. In W.P. No. 7865 of 2012, the prayer is to return back the Teachers Service registers, which were taken by police force from the custody of the petitioner on 14th February 2012 with the help of the police force, to the petitioner. 3. W.P. No. 7866 of 2012 is for a direction to the 1st respondent to issue grants for the administration of the school for the academic years 2009-2010 and 2011 to the petitioner. 4. W.P. No. 16032 of 2012 is for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the activities of the petitioner school management, more particularly sanctioning leaves to the teachers and the leave salary and also interfering with the Headmistress in teaching activities by allotting teachers role etc. 5. The Contempt Petition No.955 of 2012 is to punish the respondent for having allegedly disobeyed the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 5153 of 2012 dated 6.3.2012. In that writ Petition, the Petitioner School complained that some of the Teachers have become surplus to the requirement of the School and they have sent a representation and therefore they wanted the representation to be considered. This court directed the Director of Elementary Education to consider their representation and pass orders within a time frams. Non-adherence of the consideration of the petitioner’s Representation resulted in filling of the Contempt petition. 6. It is the stand of the petitioner in the said writ petition that the respondents have not taken any steps to reduce the number of Teachers and the Government is wasting money by giving salary to the Teachers, whose names are mentioned in the Writ Petition and they are Prema, S. Revathi, C. Nirmala Devi, Vasuki and M. Sivakumar. 7. However, today, when the matter came up, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Teachers mentioned by the School were deployed to some other School and they have joined the new place. This Court does not find any case is made out to pursue the Contempt. Hence, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. 8. 7. However, today, when the matter came up, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Teachers mentioned by the School were deployed to some other School and they have joined the new place. This Court does not find any case is made out to pursue the Contempt. Hence, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. 8. In all the three Writ Petitions, the basis of the petitioner was that the respondents at the instance of the Teachers, resorted to direct payment system by passing orders on 2.12.2011. The School management challenged the said direct payment system in W.P.No.29908 of 2011. The said writ petition after notice to the official respondents came to be allowed by a learned Judge on 2.12.2012. The learned Judge held that inasmuch as order of resumption of direct payment system affects the right of the petitioner and it has been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, the order was set aside and the matter was directed to the District Elementary Educational Officer. Kancheepuram to pass a detailed speaking order taking into account the defence pleaded by the Petitioner School and its correspondent. It is on the basis of the said writ petition where direct payment system was set aside, the three writ petitions came to be filed.9. Insofar as the seizure of the Teachers Service Register is Concerned, it is for the Petitioner to work out their rights and they have not made the police officials, as parties to the writ petition. With reference to the writ petitioner’s claim of release of grant as well as sanction of leave is concerned, that depends upon the orders to be passed by the respondents pursuant to the direction issued by this Court. 10. In the meanwhile, the aggrieved Teachers preferred a third party Writ Appeal and the Writ Appeal is challenging the order passed by the learned Judge on 2.2.2012 in W.P.No.29908 of 2011. A division bench of this Court by order dated 18.10.2012 dismissed the Writ appeal by stating that they do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the official respondents were given two months time for completing the enquiry and to pass orders. 11. A division bench of this Court by order dated 18.10.2012 dismissed the Writ appeal by stating that they do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the official respondents were given two months time for completing the enquiry and to pass orders. 11. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Division Bench as well as the order passed by the Learned Judge in W.P.No.29908 of 2011, the Chief Educational Officer by his proceedings dated 9.1.2013, after getting reply from the management and after conducting enquiry with the same Teachers, held that the management has made several commissions and omissions and was not acting responsibly in the administration of the School and in paragraph 13, considering the welfare of the Teachers as well as the interest of School and Pursuant to the power vested on the authority, from the date of the order, the Additional Elementary Educational Officer was directed to resort to direct payment system of salary to the Teachers of the petitioner School. 12. Mr. S.V. Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that he would challenge the order passed by the authority. As and when the order dated 9.1.2013 has been passed resorting to direct payment system, the question of giving a direction to the respondents for releasing the amount for the academic year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 will not arise. Similarly, the power to sanction leave will vest with the authorities on the basis of direct payment system and therefore until the petitioner succeeds in upsetting the order dated 9.1.2013, the other writ petitions cannot be entertained. Hence, all the three writ petitions stand dismissed. However, it is without prejudice to the petitioner’s challenge to the order passed by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Kancheepuram. No costs. All Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 13. In the result, all the three writ petitions and the contempt Petition stand dismissed.