N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.

This Contempt Petition is filed for the wilful disobedience of the order made in W.P.(MD)No.835 of 2008 dated 01.02.2008.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she filed the above writ petition, questioning the demolition notice issued on 14.01.2008 by the respondent. The said writ petition was disposed of after hearing the learned counsel appeared for the respondent and Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order read as follows:-

"4. We have considered the argument of the counsel for both sides and perused the records placed. It is seen from the impugned communication that the respondent called upon the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachments, within a period of seven days. Admittedly, before issuing the impugned communication, no other notice was issued by the respondent. Hence, we are of the view that sufficient opportunity has to be granted to the petitioner to submit his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to treat the impugned communication dated 14.01.2008 as a show cause notice and submit his explanation, if any, within a period of four weeks from today and on receipt of the same, the respondent is directed to consider it and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eighteen weeks thereafter. It is needless to mention that till the disposal of petitioner's explanation, the respondent shall not disturb the petitioner's possession.

5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."

3. The said order was passed on 01.02.2008, granting liberty to the parties to treat the notice dated 14.01.2008 as a show cause notice and the petitioner was permitted to submit her explanation within a period of four weeks from 01.02.2008 and on receipt of the same, the respondent was directed to consider and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of eighteen weeks thereafter and till the disposal of the petitioner's explanation, the respondent shall not disturb the petitioner's possession.

4. The effect of the said order is that only after getting explanation from the petitioner submitted within a period of four weeks from 01.02.2008, the respondent shall pass orders within a period of eighteen weeks thereafter and till fresh orders are passed, the possession of the petitioner cannot be disturbed. The said order was intimated to the respondent by telegram.

5. According to the petitioner, on 07.02.2008, the subject building was demolished at 05.00 p.m., and the same is in violation of the Court order. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition that the nature of the order passed by this Court was also informed to the respondent through the learned counsel at about 04.35 p.m., i.e., before the demolition. Pointing out the above violation of the Court Order, the petitioner filed this Contempt Petition on 13.06.2008.

6. This Court, taking note of the said demolition, by order dated 28.08.2008, after having satisfied with the report filed by the petitioner, drawn by a qualified Engineer, showing the estimated damage caused to her house was an extent of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs only), directed the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) within a period of two weeks from 28.08.2008, and on such deposit being made by the respondent, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the same.

7. The said order of the Division Bench dated 28.08.2008 was challenged by the respondent in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.23801 of 2008 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.10.2008, stating that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Division Bench dated 28.08.2008.

8. On 04.12.2008, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted before this Court that he was having a demand draft bearing No.376955 dated 02.12.2008 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-(Ru