Judgment : The Palayamkottai Municipality is the appellant in both the appeals. The Respondent in each of the appeals are husband and wife respectively. They are owners of Door No.27, Arumani Street, Palayamkottai. The appellant launched prosecution against the husband and wife for having constructed a room and a toilet in the first floor contrary to the provisions of Sec.187 of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, after giving a notice as contemplated under Sec.216(2) of the Act. 2. The trial Court found the respondents guilty. On appeal, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli acquitted the respondents on the ground that no proper order has been passed as contemplated under Sec.216(1) of the Act. 3. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the purported notice issued by the appellant is in pursuance of an order passed under Sec.216(1) of the Act. 4. I perused the notice alleged to have been served on the respondent in both the appeals. It is a printed notice. It contemplates an order under Sec.216(1) of the Act. While issuing the notice as contemplated under Sec.216(2) of the Act, the notice is silent about the order passed by the appellant under Sec.216(1) of the Act and simply it directs the respondents to show-cause why the order passed under Sec.216(1) of the Act, should not be confirmed. There is nothing in the notice to infer that any such purported order alleged to have been passed under Sec.216(1) of the Act was made. As such, the reasoning of the appellate authority that no proper order has been passed under Sec.216(1) of the Act and notice issued to the respondents is defective is sustainable. As such, I see no merit in these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed.