ORDER : M.M. Sundresh, J. (Prayer: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent herein for his willful disobedience of the order made in W.M.P.(MD) No.5443 of 2020 in W.P. (MD) No.6232 of 2020 dated 20.05.2020 on the file of this Court. Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Form I notice made in Na.Ka.No. 1823/2019/F1 dated 04.03.2020 as well as the consequential impugned Form II notice made in Na.Ka.No.1823/2019/F1 dated 17.03.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same. Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in Roc.No.C2/34817/2011 dated 21.08.2019 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to issue 'C' Form license in favour of the petitioner for running Chakravarthy and Sri Mini Chakravarthy theatres comprised in T.S.No.N5/64 part, 65,66,67,68 and 69 part, situated at Rajamangalam Road, Chettikulam Junction, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District within the time stipulated by this Court. Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice made in Na.Ka.No.3440/2019/F1 dated 07.05.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.) 1. W.P.(MD) No.6232/2020 has been filed challenging the impugned notice issued under Section 56, 57 and 85 of the Town and Country Planning Act. 2. W.P.(MD) No.20488/2019 has been filed challenging the cancellation of C Form License. 3. W.P.(MD) No.16918/2019 has been filed challenging the order passed under Act 2 of 1988. 4. The contempt petition has been filed for the alleged disobedience of the order passed in W.M.P(MD) No.5443/2020 in W.P.(MD) No. 6323/2020 dated 20.05.2020. 5. As all these matters pertaining to the same petitioner and respondents, they have been taken up and disposed of by common order. Though there are other respondents, in view of the commonality in the issues also, we are inclined to pass common order. 6. The impugned orders admittedly are appealable in nature, though before different appellate authorities. 7. The petitioner has been running a Multiplex complex. Though there are other respondents, in view of the commonality in the issues also, we are inclined to pass common order. 6. The impugned orders admittedly are appealable in nature, though before different appellate authorities. 7. The petitioner has been running a Multiplex complex. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that only after the onset of Pandemic, the building has been closed and therefore, hitherto the activities were going on. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent Municipality submitted that there is no contempt as such, particularly when the violation is at the hands of the petitioner by putting up additional construction. The order has to be interpreted to mean that status quo is only with respect to the construction alone and not for running. In the case on hand, the petitioner has violated the Town and Country Planning Act by putting up construction unauthorizedly and without obtaining permission. 9. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the case in all these three writ petitions. 10. W.P.(MD) No.6232/2020 has been filed against the action taken by the respondent Municipality for the violation committed against the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. An appeal would lie before the Government under Section 10A of the said Act. Similarly, as against the cancellation of the license, an appeal would lie. However, insofar as the action taken rejecting the permission on the application of the petitioner dated 06.05.2020 is concerned, it is the very same Commissioner, who is entitled to consider. 11. The Contempt Petition has been filed inter alia alleging that the order of status quo has not been complied with. While the petitioner is not entitled for putting up construction, the order of status quo would only mean that he is entitled to continue the operation. The petitioner has been operating the building from the year 1984 onwards. But for the Pandemic, he wanted to start its function by making alteration. Under those circumstances, an order was passed by the Municipality, which cannot be termed as wilful or contemptitious. It may be a wrong understanding of the order passed by the Court, but certainly, there is no contempt involved. 12. In such view of the matter, the contempt petition is closed. 13. Under those circumstances, an order was passed by the Municipality, which cannot be termed as wilful or contemptitious. It may be a wrong understanding of the order passed by the Court, but certainly, there is no contempt involved. 12. In such view of the matter, the contempt petition is closed. 13. W.P.(MD) Nos.6232 of 2020, 20488 of 2019 and 16918 of 2019 stand disposed of in the following manner: (i) The petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal challenging the order passed under Section 56, 57 and 85 of the Town and Country Planning Act within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, he is entitled to run the Mall. Thereafter, it is open to the petitioner to get appropriate interim order before the appellate Authority; (ii) The building in question shall be opened in view of the above interpretation of the interim order passed and also by taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been running the show from the year 1984 onwards. However, we make it clear that it is only an interim arrangement till the petitioner files an appeal and gets appropriate orders from the appellate authority; (iii) The cancellation of C Form License is put on hold till the petitioner files an appeal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Here again, the petitioner is entitled to get the above interim order before the appellate authority; (iv) Insofar as the order rejecting the permission for license under Act 2 of 1988 is concerned, there is no appeal would lie and therefore, the same stands set aside so as to facilitate the petitioner to furnish the documents as required. After all the petitioner has been doing the said business for number of years. We are inclined to grant four weeks time for representation of the papers by the petitioner with due compliance. Till such time, the petitioner is permitted to carry on the activities; (v) Before the appellate authority, namely, the Government, the petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions both on facts and law. No costs. Consequently Sub A(MD) No.210 of 2020 is closed.