JUDGMENT : M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. When the Contempt Petition was listed on 15.11.2017, the learned standing counsel accepted notice on behalf of the first respondent and the Commissioner of Tiruchirappalli City Corporation was also directed to be present before this Court on 28.11.2017 and on that particular day, his presence was dispensed with for the present and with a further direction to appear before this Court on 19.12.2017 at 10.30 a.m. The contempt petition was again listed on 19.01.2018 and this Court, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the contempt applicant that the second respondent under the guise of using “Hitachi bokline” machine, causing nuisance and that heavy vibrations was also felt in the Hotel premises owned by them and prays for appropriate direction, directing the first respondent to initiate immediate action against the second respondent for violating the conditions and to withdraw the permission permitting the second respondent to demolish the building in question. 2. However, this Court, taking into consideration the assurance given by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in paragraph No.13 of the counter affidavit, dated 28.11.2017, permitted the second respondent to use “Hitachi bokline” machine to carry out the demolition in a scientific manner and with a further direction to ensure that no damage whatsoever shall be caused to the building of the writ petitioner. 3. When the matter is taken up today, Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that though the lower vibration hand driller machine can be used to demolish the building in question, the second respondent, in order to cause nuisance and inconvenience, started using 'Hitachi Bokline' machine and therefore, vibrations spread throughout the Hotel building owned by the writ petitioner and as a consequence, the persons, who are staying in the lodges, are also put to grave inconvenience and business is affected and hence, prays for restraining the proceedings of the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, dated 04.12.2017 made in Na.Ka.No.F1/3895/2017 (Ko.AB). 4. 4. Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/second contemnor would submit that the said process would take longer time and it is not for the writ petitioner to dictate as to the manner in which, the building in question is to be demolished and also pointed out that the writ petitioner itself is guilty of putting up unauthorized construction and also drawn the attention of this Court to the notice, dated 01.02.2018 in Na.Ka.No.F1/3895/2017(Ko.AB) of Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation for parting out unauthorized construction to an extent of 18562.50 square feet and as such, it is not open to the writ petitioner to dictate the manner in which demolition activities should be carried out. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent/Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation would submit that having considered all the material aspects, a notice dated 04.12.2017 has been issued to the second respondent/second contemnor to use the hand breaker machine instead of 'Hitachi Bokline' and it may solve the problem between the concerned parties in a fair and equitable manner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that the notice, dated 01.02.2018 issued by the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation alleging unauthorized construction on the part of the writ petitioner is not based on actual facts and invited the attention of this Court to the affidavit of the writ petitioner, dated 01.02.2018, especially to paragraph No.16, wherein it is averred that the building is an authorized one and construction has been put up according to the plans, after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities and the said superstructure is also subjected to statutory levies. 7. This Court has considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 8. In the light of the apprehension expressed by the writ petitioner as to the usage of 'Hitachi Bokline' for carrying out the demolition of the remaining portion of the building and also taking into consideration the notice, dated 04.12.2017 issued by the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation to the second respondent/second contemnor, this Court directs the second respondent/second contemnor to adhere to the terms of the said notice and also the inspection report of Dr.C.Natarajan, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, dated 25.05.2017 in reference No.NIT/Civil/CN/01. 9. The Contempt Petition is closed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.