1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:11.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE.N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE.R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition (MD)No.500 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 P.Rajamani ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 3.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Bungalow Medu, Madurai Road, Theni Division, Theni District. 4.The Assistant Engineer, Highways Department, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in connection with the impugned order passed by the third respondent in K.No.1/2010/E.B./J.E. dated 03.01.2011 quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner's from his house in Survey No.328/1A, 1B in S.P.K.Road, Minnagar, Chinnamanoor, Theni District, without following due process of law and without providing opportunity to the petitioner. For Petitioner ... Mr.D.Anbarasu For Respondents ... Mr.M.Rajarajan Govt.Advocate ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J) Heard Mr.D.Anbarasu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Rajarajan, takes notice for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P(MD).No.13053 of 2010 and this Court, by order dated 01.12.2010, quashed the paper publication made in the news paper, on 19.10.2010 and disposed of the said Writ Petition by granting opportunity to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the third respondent therein within a period of two weeks from the date of the order and also by enclosing a copy of the Court order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 and on receipt of the said representation, the third respondent was directed to consider the same and afford an opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of the petitioner's representation. 3. According to the petitioner, a copy of the order was made available to the petitioner on 24.12.2010 and thereafter, on 05.01.2011, the petitioner submitted a representation before the third respondent along with a copy of the order of this Court, which was sent by registered post and no order is passed by the third respondent in the said representation. However, even before the expiry of the time on 03.01.2011, this impugned notice was issued by the third respondent to demolish the petitioner's house within 10 days. 4. We are of the view that in the light of the earlier order dated 01.12.2010 in which the third respondent is also a party and he is also bound to obey the said order and the petitioner having submitted his representation, as directed by this Court on 05.01.2011, four weeks time was given to the third respondent to pass fresh orders from the date of the receipt of the same, the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 03.01.2011 cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. The respondents are directed to comply with the order passed by this Court, dated 01.12.2010, before resorting to evict the petitioner. 5. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (W) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 2.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Bungalow Medu, Madurai Road, Theni Division, Theni District. 3.The Assistant Engineer, Highways Department, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. + 1 cc to Mr. D.Anbarasu, Advocate, SR.No.1406 ssm W.P.(MD)No.500 of 2011 11.01.2011 TR : 12.01.2011 : 2p/5c : IT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/