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. 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 dire