JUDGMENT K.G. Shah, J. After having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, we propose to dispose of this petition by following short order. On August 6, 1987, the District Collector, Raigad, Respondent No. 1 herein, issued to the Petitioner a notice calling upon her to demolish the construction which she had put on the land Survey No. 2-A, Hissa No. 2 at Kihim, Taluka-Alibag. The grounds on which that notice was based are that the Petitioner had not obtained the prior permission from the Area Incharge Collector of Raigad for putting up the construction. That construction was within 500 metres of hightide area limit and that was dangerous from the view point of public health. 2. To this notice, the Petitioner immediately replied by her reply dated August 19, 1987, and she contended therein that she has obtained the permission from the Kihim Grampanchayat for putting up the offending construction and has paid the property tax which had been levied by the Collector office. She also contended in her reply that before any order calling upon her to remove the construction could be passed, the principle of fairplay entitled her at least to a hearing. She also made a grievance of fact that she has not been given an opportunity to represent before the Collector that the Farm House had been long completed and had been occupied and used by her since prior to the monsoon. She also requested the Collector to supply her relevant guidelines as regard the front shoreline and the public health point of view referred to in his notice. She protested that the construction put up by her in any way does not encumber the front shoreline so as to require the immediate demolition without furnishing a copy of the guideline to her. 3. Thereafter, once again, Respondent No. 1 the Collector gave second notice Exhibit-F dated September 1, 1997 reiterating what he had earlier stated in his first notice and adding some more facts therein. Once again the Collector on September 21, 1987 gave to the Petitioner a notice Exhibit-G on the same line. In this subsequent notice also the Collector of Raigad called upon the Petitioner to remove the offending structure. 4. The Petitioner has challenged the action of the Collector, Raigad calling upon her to remove the Farm House. 5. Once again the Collector on September 21, 1987 gave to the Petitioner a notice Exhibit-G on the same line. In this subsequent notice also the Collector of Raigad called upon the Petitioner to remove the offending structure. 4. The Petitioner has challenged the action of the Collector, Raigad calling upon her to remove the Farm House. 5. Admittedly, Respondent No. 1 had not given any hearing to the Petitioner. To the first notice dated August 6, 1987, the Petitioner gave a reply and protested the action of the Collector and requested the Collector to supply the relevant guideline as regards the construction of the Farm House on the front shoreline and the public health. She also stated that the principle of fairplay requires that before any order calling upon her to remove the construction of the Farm House is passed, she should be given a hearing. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, the action like the present one asking the Petitioner to remove her Farm House construction should not have been taken without giving her a proper opportunity of representing her case and of being properly herd. On that small point itself, the petition should be allowed. Hence the Petition is allowed. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to give proper replies to the second and third notice dated September 1, 1997 and September 21, 1997 annexures F and G respectively to the Petition and file those replies before the Collector of Raigad within 4 weeks from now. The first reply of the Petitioner dated August 19, 1987 annexure-E to the Petition shall also be considered by the Collector. After 4 weeks from now, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing of which the notice shall be given to the Petitioner. The Petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. After this exercise has been done, the collector shall decide the matter afresh by reasoned order. If the order is against the Petitioner, the same shall not be implemented for 4 weeks from the date of the intimation being given to her. The Collector shall decide the matter in light of what is stated hereinabove, and in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 7. No order as to cost.