Judgment :- By even dated proceedings of 19-4-2000 which are impugned in Writ Petition Nos. 15391 and 15392 of 2000, the respondent Municipality has directed the petitioner to demolish the unauthorised constructions put up by the petitioner in R. S. No. 4954/1 Lovedale, Udagamandalam and in R. S. No. 1672/part in Shoreham Palace Road, Charing Cross, Udagamandalam as the said contructions had been put up by the petitioner without any valid building permission, by exercising the powers under Section 217(J) and 217(G) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. 2. By proceedings No. Na.Ka.No.2364/98.F.1.(v) dated 19-6-2000, which is impugned in Writ Petition No. 15393 of 2000, the respondent Municipality refused to give permission to the petitioner for the construction of the building in Survey No. 2731/1B1, Woodcock Road, Ootacamund on the ground that the site is situated within the prohibited distance of 200 metres from the boundaries of lake in Ootacamund. 3. According to Mr. N. R. Chandran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner had submitted their building applications for the respective buildings in all three writ petitions, as early as 1998, after getting clearance from the department of telecommunication with the approval of Standing Advisory Committee for Frequency Allocation approving the location for the proposed construction viz., a tower for transmitting the telecommunication signals. As no orders were passed within the statutory period by the respondent Municipality, the petitioner claims that the building permission was deemed to be granted; proceeded with the construction; completed the same and admittedly, put the same into operation now. Therefore, it is contended that the demand of the respondent Municipality requiring the petitioner to demolish the entire construction by the impugned notice dated 19-4-2000 in Writ Petition Nos. 15391 and 15392 of 2000 merely on the ground that the said construction was put up without valid permission, is illegal and arbitrary. Opposing the impugned order of demolition dated 19-4-2000 in Writ Petition Nos. 15391 and 15392 of 2000, Mr. N. R. Chandran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further contends that before issuing the impugned notice of demolition, the respondent has not given any opportunity to the petitioner to explain their case and therefore the impugned demand of the respondent Municipality to demolish the constructions is violative of principles of natural justice. 4. N. R. Chandran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further contends that before issuing the impugned notice of demolition, the respondent has not given any opportunity to the petitioner to explain their case and therefore the impugned demand of the respondent Municipality to demolish the constructions is violative of principles of natural justice. 4. Challenging the proceedings dated 19-6-2000 which is impugned in Writ Petition No. 15393 of 2000, Mr. N. R. Chandran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the only reason for refusing the building permission is that the construction had been put up within the prohibited area attracting Rule 5(5) of the Building Regulations in Hill Stations made under Section 217-C read with Section 303(1) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, is not factually correct as the respondent has not given any notice before measuring the prohibited distance. In any event, it is contended that the respondents are estopped by issuing demolition notice even in W.P. No. 15393 of 2000 as they had not passed any orders on the building application which is made, as early as 1998, and on the other hand, they never objected the construction all these years till the tower is completed and put the same into operation. 5. Per contra, Mr. K. R. Tamizhmani, learned Special Government Pleader, taking notice on behalf of the respondent, contends that the petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy either under Section 322(1)(c) of the said Act, by way of an appeal before the Government or under Section 217-K of the said Act by way of review and thereafter, a further revision before this Court under Section 217-I, of the said Act. In view of such effective alternative remedy, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 7. In all these three writ petitions, admittedly, the petitioner has completed the construction of the impugned tower and put the same into operation. Even though, Mr. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 7. In all these three writ petitions, admittedly, the petitioner has completed the construction of the impugned tower and put the same into operation. Even though, Mr. N. R. Chandran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, brings to my notice that the construction has been put up in the impugned site with the approval of the department of telecommunications and the Standing Advisory Committee for Frequency Allocation, in my considered opinion, the same are not relevant for the disposal of these writ petitions, as the point raised on behalf of the respondent is that the petitioner had not obtained appropriate permission from the respondent Municipality before putting up such construction. In other words, they have violated Section 217-J and 217-G of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act read with Rule 5(5) of the Building Regulations in Hill Stations. But, it is not in dispute that no orders have been passed on the building applications preferred by the petitioner with regard to the towers that are located in R.S. No. 4954/1, Lovedale, Ootacamund and in R.S. No. 1672/part in Shoreham Palace Road, Charging Cross, Udagamandalam which are subject matters in Writ Petition Nos. 15391 and 15392 of 2000. Similarly, there is no reference under the impugned proceedings dated 19-6-2000 that the petitioner had been given an opportunity by the respondent Municipality before arriving at the prohibited distance contemplated under Rule 5(5) of the Building Regulations in Hill Stations viz., 200 metres from the boundaries of the lake. 8. Under such circumstances, in my considered opinion, I am obliged to set aside the impugned order dated 19-6-2000 which is impugned in Writ Petition No. 15393 of 2000 and to direct the Chief Engineer of Public Works Department of the concerned region to give 15 days notice to the petitioner and to survey and measure the prohibited distance between the impugned sites and the boundaries of the lake at Ootacamund with reference to the survey map and other revenue records in the presence of the petitioner and the respondent and thereafter, the respondent is at liberty to give further opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on the application for the building permission in Survey No. 2731/1B1, Woodcock Road. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by any such decision, they are at liberty to approach the competent authority for appropriate relief either seeking any relaxation if it is so permissible in law or challenging the order of the respondent. 9. It is not in dispute that the applications preferred by the petitioner for building permission are still pending before the respondent since 1998, it may not be proper to require the petitioner to demolish the buildings in Survey Nos. 4954/1 and 1672/part keeping the building applications pending before the respondent Municipality itself. Therefore, the demolition notice dated 19-4-2000 impugned in Writ Petition Nos. 15391 and 15392 of 2000 are quashed and the petitioner is permitted to give any further particulars to the respondent. Municipality within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order substantiating their claim for the building permission pending before the respondent Municipality and on receipt of the same, the respondent Municipality shall consider the same and pass orders on the building applications preferred by the petitioner for the respective buildings. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by any such decision, they are at liberty to approach the competent authority for appropriate relief either seeking any relaxation, if it is so permissible in law or challenging the orders. 10. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 22406 to 22408 of 2000 are closed. Ordered accordingly.