M.M.Sundresh, J.

Contempt Appeal No.2 of 2015 has been preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Contempt Petition No.2825 of 2014 in Crl.O.P.No.11771 of 2014 dated 10.03.2015, in which, a direction was issued to the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary to the State Government to consider shifting the appellants to some other place.

2. L.P.A.No.2 of 2015 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved over the findings rendered against him without even arraying him as a party respondent in the contempt petition No.2825 of 2014 as well as Crl.O.P.No.11771 of 2014. Thus both the appeals have been taken up together and disposed of by way of a common order. For the sake of brevity, the parties herein are arrayed as arrayed in L.P.A.

3. Before deciding these appeals on merit, the background facts are to be placed on record.

About 14 acres of land situated in Perambur Barracks Road was owned by M/s Binny Limited. These lands were used as residential quarters for the employees of M/s Binny Limited. In pursuant to the stoppage of the industrial operation, proceedings have been initiated and pending the same, a compromise was entered into between the employees and Management of M/s Binny Limited, by which, alternative accommodation to the employees was provided on free of cost. About 123 employees did not opt for settlement and thus, they did not vacate the quarters. A suit in C.S.No.396 of 2011 was filed before this Court inter alia contending that compromise entered would not bind them. Pending the said suit, 119 employees entered into a settlement with the Management in the month of December, 2013, by receiving terminal benefits with interest and alternative land. An agreement was entered into between the appellant in LPA.No.2 of 2015 and M/s Binny Limited for the development of the property. It is the case of the appellant that all the employees have vacated their respective quarters including the father of the first respondent, who was incidentally working with M/s Binny Limited earlier. Alleging that the first respondent and few others were dispossessed forcibly by the appellant, a complaint was given. As there was no registration of the First Information Report, Crl.O.P.No.11771 of 2014 was filed by the 1st respondent seeking a direction to register and investigate the complaint dated 25.04.2014. On 08.05.2014, the learned single Judge has disposed of the said petition in the following manner.

“This petition is filed, praying for a direction to the respondent to register and investigate the complaint dated 25.04.2014 of the petitioner in accordance with law.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the petitioner to submit a fresh complaint before the concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner on receipt of the said complaint, shall investigate the same and act in accordance with law.

4. With the above directions, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.”

4. On 20.05.2014, the first respondent preferred another complaint. On receipt of the same, a case was registered in Crime No.1334 of 2014. After investigation, the complaint has been closed as ''false” on 26.06.2014. A referred charge sheet notice was also served on the first respondent. The first respondent and three others have filed W.P.No.20771 of 2014 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein to construct houses for them.

5. Despite the earlier complaint given, yet another complaint was given by the first respondent on 8.7.2014, which has been registered as Crime No.1854 of 2014, wherein it was stated that on 29.06.2014 the houses have been demolished forcibly. The writ petition filed in W.P.No. 20771 of 2014 was dismissed on 02.12.2014. The first respondent has also filed a protest application before the V Metropolitan M