ORDER: The petitioner Hotel has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in B.A.No.151 of 1988 dated 11.1.1993 and quash the order passed under Secs.205(3), 216(3) and 317 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. 2. Today, when the above matter has been taken up for consideration the learned counsel for the petitioner is present. But neither the respondent nor his counsel is present. Hence, this matter is decided on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, what comes to the knowledge of the court is that the respondent, without strictly adhering to and without following the provisions of law as contemplated in the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)all of a sudden has issued the impugned notice in his proceeding No.151 of 1988, dated 11th January, 1993, altogether making the impugned order under Secs.205(3), 216(3) and 317 of the Act, thereby contemplating action and prosecution against the petitioner. 4. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would impress upon this Court arguing to the effect that even according to Sec.217 of the Act, the respondent is required to issue the show cause notice under Sec.205 of the Act and on failure, he should pass the preliminary order under Sec.216(1) of the Act and that only in the event of non-compliance of such a preliminary order passed, the question of invoking the provision of Sec.217 could arise in law, and that the respondent having combined all these sections together, amalgamating all the issues which have to be separately dealt with and making all as three-in-one has committed grave blunder and the same can never be allowed to exist even for a moment and would therefore pray to quash the said impugned order for patent error of law committed on the face of the impugned order. Sec.317 reads as follows: “Penalty for unlawful building: If the construction or reconstruction of any building or well- (a) is commenced without permission of the (executive authority), or (b) is carried on or completed otherwise than in accordance with the particulars on which such permission was based, or (c) is carried on or completed in contravention of any lawful order or in breach of any provision contained in this Act or in any rule or by-law made hereunder or of any direction or requisition lawfully given or made, or if any alterations or additions required by any notice issued under Sec.205 or Sec.215 are not duly made, or if any person to whom a direction is given by the (executive authority) to alter or demolish a building or well under Sec.216 falls to obey such direction. the owner of the building or well or the said person, as the case may be, shall be liable on conviction to a fine which may extend in the case of a building to five hundred rupees and in the case of a well or hut to fifty rupees, and to a further fine which may extend in the case of a building to one hundred rupees, and in the case of a well or hut to ten rupees, for each day during which the offence is proved to have continued after the first day.” 5. A plain reading of the above section would contemplate notice under Sec.205 or Sec.215 of the Act and in spite of such notice made and direction given to alter or demolish a portion of the building for non-compliance further order under Sec.216 has to be made and in spite of such an order passed if the petitioner fails to obey such direction, only then the question of launching prosecution in proof of which punishment as contemplated under Sec.317 of the Act would arise. A cursory glance at the impugned order would show that the respondent by issuing the same altogether under all the said three sections contemplating punishment under Sec.317 of the Act has denied the opportunity to explain and rectify the deviations as independently contemplated under Secs.205 and 216 respectively which is nothing short of an act done in violation of the principles of natural justice and is bad in law. Consequently, the impugned order only becomes liable to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned order only becomes liable to be quashed. Hence, the combined order made together under all the above three sections of the Act by the respondent in the impugned order is quite meaningless and improper and the same only becomes liable to be quashed. 6. In result, the above writ petition is allowed. The impugned order made on the part of the respondent in his proceeding B.A.No.151 of 1988, dated 11.1.1993 is hereby quashed. No costs. 7. Consequently, W.M.P.No.1693 of 1993 is closed.