1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY Writ Petition (MD) No.6451 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 J.Farida Begum ..Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Joint Director of Municipality, Madurai, Madurai District. 3.The Commissioner, Melur Municipality, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 4.W.Nallakkani .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.303/10/F1 dated 15.6.2011 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the 3rd respondent to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner before deciding the allegation of encroachment. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For respondents 1 to 3: Mr.K.Mahendran, Special Government Pleader For 4th respondent : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.JYOTHIMANI, J) At the instance of the fourth respondent, earlier in W.P.(MD)No.3036 of 2011, in the order dated 16.3.2011, this Bench passed the following order, directing the official respondents to consider the representation of the fourth respondent as well the writ petitioner:- "3 In view of the limited relief that has been sought for, this writ petition itself is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider and pass suitable orders on the petitioner's representation dated 25.2.2010 in accordance with law, following the procedure contemplated under the relevant rules and after affording reasonable opportunity to all the parties concerned, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed." 2. Thereafter, the Commissioner/third respondent has given impugned notice dated 15.6.2011 to the writ petitioner directing to remove the encroachment by demolishing the building. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the earlier order stating that opportunity must be given to the writ petitioner as well as the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3036 of 2011, a unilateral order has been passed directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment. 4. Considering the said direction given by the Bench of this Court by order dated 16.3.2011, we are of the view that the notice given by the third respondent dated 15.6.2011 is contrary to the said direction. However, inasmuch as notice has been given on 15.6.2011, the said notice should be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner must be given opportunity to give explanation. 5. Accordingly, the impugned notice shall be treated as show cause notice. The petitioner shall be entitled to submit her explanation within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the third respondent/the Commissioner, Melur Municipality shall conduct personal hearing to the writ petitioner as well as the fourth respondent within a period of two weeks and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( AE ) /TRUE COPY/ asvm SUB ASST REGISTRAR To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Joint Director of Municipality, Madurai, Madurai District. 3.The Commissioner,Melur Municipality, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 1CC TO MR. M. AJMAL KHAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 83788: 1CC TO MR. S.A. AJMAL KHAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 23755: 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 23536: DM W.P.(MD) No.6451 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 18.07.2011 2P:7C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/