JUDGMENT A.P. Misra and R.B. Mehrotra, JJ. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today. Impleadment of Surya Pratap Singh, S.D.M. as respondent is not necessary in this case. In view of the averments made in the affidavit the petition is cognizable by this Bench. 3. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case specially in view of the fact that the learned Counsel for the parties agree this petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission without exchange of affidavits. 4. The petitioners seek writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to enforce the demolition order of the disputed constructions of the petitioners lying on the disputed land. The case of the petitioners is that they have already filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Nainital, wherein injunction order has been passed as far back as 3rd December, 1990 and 11th December, 1990, which is still pending and injunction is still in operation, and further the proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities for demolition is also pending against the petitioners before the Controlling Authority and as the petitioners have already applied for regularisation by depositing Rs. 17,380 hence the threatened action of demolition of the constructions of the petitioners is arbitrary. The petitioners have come to this Court for staying any such demolition. 5. The fear expressed by the petitioners might be there but we hope and trust that when an injunction order is in operation, which is in existence even today, the respondent-authorities would not demolish the constructions so long the injunction order is in operation. Secondly, if that be true, once proceedings for demolition of the constructions is pending then any action apart and independent if undertaken by the authority should not be done without giving an opportunity to the petitioners in accordance with law. It is always expected from every Statutory Authority while taking recourse for a public object and clearing the congestion caused by unauthorised constructions to follow the procedure established by law and it is bounden duty of every Statutory Authority while performing the public functions to abide by the law itself. It is always expected from every Statutory Authority while taking recourse for a public object and clearing the congestion caused by unauthorised constructions to follow the procedure established by law and it is bounden duty of every Statutory Authority while performing the public functions to abide by the law itself. The object may be very audible but in doing so in case they do not follow the procedure established by law then the action would be had on account of a number of factors since no notice is given to the said persons before demolition. Primarily, if all the local bodies and their authorities effectively function then they can certainly check the encroachment at the initial stage, but permitting them for a long period of time then not giving an opportunity to explain the case cannot be justified. We are expressing this opinion because the matter is coming repeatedly before Courts in the matter of demolition by the various authorities including local bodies. However, we have no hesitation in holding that the authorities will not within the bounds of law and in case they find that the unauthorised construction is to be demolished then they will do so in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the persons concerned. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is finally disposed of. 7. A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner within 24 hours on payment of usual charges.