JUDGMENT - DHANUKA D.R., J.:—Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 waive service. 2. The facts of this case disclose shocking state of affairs. 3. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the action of respondent No. 1 in respect of demolition of shops/structures on plot of land bearing Survey No. 8-A, Hissa No. 2 at village Navghar, Vasai, District Thane. The petitioners were carrying on business in their independent shops constructed on the said plot since the year 1977. In paragraph 4 of the petition, the petitioners have averred that the structure in question was assessed by Gram Panchayat, Navghar, in the name of the petitioners. On 28th November, 1991, a notice was served on the petitioners by respondent No. 1, the Tahsildar of Vasai. On 7th December, 1991, the petitioners sent a reply letter to the respondent No. 1. The learned Assistant Government Pleader admits that the respondent No. 1 had received the said reply letter. By the said reply letter, the petitioners contended that the petitioners were tenants of the land since the year 1977. By the said letter the petitioners contended that the structure in question was constructed on the said land by the petitioners with prior permission from Gram Panchayat and the said structure was duly assessed. In the said letter, it was further contended that the petitioners were paying income-tax and sales-tax regularly. In the said reply letter, it was further contended that the petitioners were relying upon the assessment record of the department of respondent No. 1, ration card, electricity bills, telephone bills, rent receipts, 7/12 extracts, Gram Panchayat assessment and index copy. By the said letter the petitioners called upon respondent No. 1 to withdraw the notice served on the petitioners, being notice dated 28th November, 1991. 4. It was expected of respondent No. 1 to scrutinise the documents relied upon by the petitioners. It was expected of respondent No. 1 to fix a personal hearing after receipt of the said reply dated 7th December, 1991. It was obligatory on respondent No. 1 to pass a speaking order if the case of the petitioners was not acceptable to respondent No. 1. It was expected of respondent No. 1 to fix a personal hearing after receipt of the said reply dated 7th December, 1991. It was obligatory on respondent No. 1 to pass a speaking order if the case of the petitioners was not acceptable to respondent No. 1. All public servants and statutory officers are enjoined by law to follow the principles of natural justice and the principles of rule of law and the contentions raised by citizens in their reply to the notice objectively and fairly. It is clear from the facts emerging from the case that respondent No. 1 acted arbitrarily and mala fide. The respondent No. 1 did not bother to study the documents relied on by the petitioners in their reply letter dated 7th December 1991. The respondent No. 1 did not send any reply to the petitioners' letter dated 7th December, 1991. The respondent No. 1 did not pass any order adjudicating upon the reply of the petitioners. The respondent No. 1 did not fix any date of hearing. The respondent No. 1 caused the structures to be demolished on 10th December, 1991 abruptly and without following the principles of natural justice causing harassment and miseries to the petitioners. The respondent No. 1 acted with undue haste presumably with intention to deprive the petitioners of their right to move the Court of law and seek an order of injunction to prevent the demolition of the said structures. 5. It is most unfortunate that the respondent No. 1 has behaved in this manner and is trying to justify his blameworthy conduct. The respondent No. 1 has no regard for rule of law and no respect for fundamental rights of the citizens. I have no hesitation in concluding that the respondent No. 1 has acted arbitrarily by directing demolition of the structures in possession of the petitioners with ulterior motive. The conduct of respondent No. 1 is inexplicable on any other hypothesis. The respondent No. 1 did not even bother to apply his mind to reply letter dated 7th December, 1991 or call for the documents relied on by the petitioners. 6. In the result, the impugned action of demolishing of the petitioners' structures complained of in the petition is set aside as illegal and without authority of law. The respondent No. 1 did not even bother to apply his mind to reply letter dated 7th December, 1991 or call for the documents relied on by the petitioners. 6. In the result, the impugned action of demolishing of the petitioners' structures complained of in the petition is set aside as illegal and without authority of law. The petitioners are granted liberty to re-construct the said structures at their own cost in the first instance and restore status quo ante. The petitioners shall be entitled to recover the entire cost of reconstruction of the said structures from the respondent No. 1. The respondents are hereby restrained from demolishing the structures which may be constructed by the petitioners by virtue of the liberty granted to the petitioners under this order. 7. Rule is made absolute with costs coupled with further directions set out in earlier part of this judgment. 8. Mr. S.P. Thorat, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, informs the Court in answer to the query of the Court that the name of the concerned officer who directed demolition of the structures of the petitioners is Shri Jayant Rane. The respondent No. 1 Shri Jayant Rane is present in Court. Neither the respondent No. 1 nor the learned Assistant Government Pleader is able to answer any of the material questions of the Court. It is obvious that the respondent No. 1 has caused wrongful injury to the petitioners and violated their fundamental rights. 9. The respondent No. 1 shall personally pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of this petition to the petitioners as the respondent No. 1 has caused injury to the petitioners by the impugned wrongful act in garb of using his official powers and acted arbitrarily and mala fide. 10. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registrar of this Court to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra for considering commencement of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No. 1 who has misbehaved with innocent citizens of this country and caused harassment and miseries to them. The conscience of the Court is deeply shocked by such misbehaviour and misconduct of a public servant. Prima facie the respondent No. 1 is guilty of breach of duty and misconduct as aforesaid. 11. Issue of certified copy of this judgment is expedited. Order accordingly. -----