B. L. Hansaria, J.: - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assails an order passed on 14.6.79 (Annexure F to the petition) under section 337(3) of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, hereiaafter the Act, to remove or pull down some construction belonging to the petitioner. The aforesaid order was passed on the ground that the petitioner had undertaken or carried out unauthorised construction by deviating from the approved plan without requisite permission from the Corporation. 2. Shri Sen submits that the impugned order suffers from illegality inasmuch as the notice which was earlier served under section 337(1) was not valid in the eye of law inasmuch as such a notice cannot be issued in view of what has been stated in sub-section (4) of section 337 because in the present case the construction had been undertaken after the plan for the same had been approved To substantiate this subnvssion the learned counsel drew our attention to Annexure-A by which the permission to erect RCC building (three storeyed) at Paltanbazar was given on 17.2.76. This approval related to some constructions in the basement, ground floor and first floor. Some time after grant of the permission, a notice under section 337(1) was served on the petitioner because of which he preferred an appeal to the Administrator and following whose order cantilever was demolished. Thereafter, the petitioner sought permission for conrtructing second, third and fourth floors which was aho sanctioned as per Annexure-E. The order as at Annexure-F was therefter passed. 3 Shri Sen has rightly contended that after the plaas were approved, as it was in the present case, the Commissioner had no authority in law to issue notice under section 337(1) of the Act. If the notice contemplated by section 337(1) could not have been issued it is apparent that the order under section 337(3) could not have been passed. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Commissioner had no authority in the eye of law to pass the impugned order. The petition is therefore allowed and the impugned order is quashed. 4. Before parting we may state that we have heard the case in the absence of any counsel representing the respondents inasmuch as nobody appeared yesterday for the respondents when the case was taken up nor has anybody appeared today. The petition is therefore allowed and the impugned order is quashed. 4. Before parting we may state that we have heard the case in the absence of any counsel representing the respondents inasmuch as nobody appeared yesterday for the respondents when the case was taken up nor has anybody appeared today. We have, therefore, deemed it fit to state that it would be open to the respondents to approach this Court for modification, alteration or cancellation of this order if such a prayer is made by the respondents within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order by them. Let a copy of this order be served on the learned Commissioner by the petitioner within a week from today.