The petitioner herein has filed W.P.(MD) No.5385 of 2017 along with W.M.P.(MD) No.4312 of 2017. This Court has passed an order in W.M.P.(MD) No.4312 of 2017 in W.P.(MD) No.5385 of 2017 on 28.03.2017, which reads as follows:
?There shall be an order of Interim Injunction restraining the third respondent of his subordinates or agents from collecting the property tax in respect of the assessment Nos.45079 & 45080 for upcoming assessment years from R4, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay Property Tax which is assessed by the third respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the interim stay shall stand automatically vacated without further reference to this Court?.
2. Pursuant to the Interim Injunction granted by this Court in the above order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's counsel issued a notice to the respondents and subsequently, the petitioner also by communication dated 29.04.2017, requested the respondent to collect the property tax from the petitioner and enclosed two cheques for a total value of Rs.80,416/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand four hundred and sixteen only). In response to the letter of the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner / respondent herein sent a reply, dated 08.05.2017, stating that the property tax assessment Nos.45079 and 45080 have been freezed, as per the direction of this Court to enable the respondent not to collect tax from the fourth respondent namely A.Rajendran viz., in in W.M.P.(MD) No.4312 of 2017. In the said communication, it was further stated that proper action will be taken after the change of assessment in favour of the petitioner.
3. From the reading of the order of this Court, it is crystal clear that there is no direction to receive the property tax from the petitioner. Having regard to the nature of the order passed by this Court, this Court does not find any reason for initiating contempt against the respondent, as there is no positive direction as against the respondent to receive property tax from the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent has collected the property tax from the fourth respondent, despite the order of this Court. This Court does not find any cause for initiating contempt, and hence the contempt petition is closed. However the petitioner is given liberty to seek appropriate direction to accept property tax from the petitioner in respect of the disputed property. Since the petitioner has tendered the amount as per the condition, it can be taken that the order of this Court imposing condition is complied with by the petitioner.
To The Assistant Commissioner, Zone No.I, Madurai Corporation, Madurai ? 625 010..