ORDER Writ petition by a dealer of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, a State owned Corporation dealing in petroleum products and having a service station by name and style M/s. Sudha Service Station on Bangalore-Mangalore Road, NH-48 at Kunigal Town adjacent to civil bus stand therein. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the show-cause notice dated 16-5-2006 (copy at Annexure-C) issued by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Tumkur Sub-Division, Tumkur, calling upon the petitioner to clear or vacate the encroached portion on the National Highway and Government land by the service station and that it should be vacated within three Jays from the date of receipt of notice, failing which further action in accordance with law will be taken. 3. The notice, inter alia, mentions that the District Administrative Authorities had directed taking measures for removing encroachments and illegal occupants on the public highways in the district; that such measures were being pursued in Kunigal Town also; that the encroachments on the Maddur road and the National Highway have been cleared; that the encroachment by the petrol service station near the old bus stand, Kunigal town on the National Highway was also required to be removed and owner of the petrol bunk was required to be apprised in the matter for further action and accordingly the petitioner was being issued with the notice for clearing the encroached portion. 4. It is this show-cause notice that is sought to be quashed by filing the present writ petition and this Court while issuing notice to the respondents granted an interim order of stay of operation of the impugned notice for a period of two weeks which has come to be extended from time to time. 5. The matter has come up for further orders in the context of an application filed by the respondent 3-Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, praying for vacating the interim order of stay and the respondent 3 has also filed statement of objections. 6. I have heard Sri Sachin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Jayshree G. Srinivas, learned Counsel for respondent 3 and Sri B. Veerappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 7. 6. I have heard Sri Sachin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Jayshree G. Srinivas, learned Counsel for respondent 3 and Sri B. Veerappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 7. In the affidavit in support of the application for vacating stay, it is stated that the petitioner who was a lessee under the respondent 3 had sought for renewal of the lease which had expired by 31-3-2005; that it has-not been renewed so far; that the matter is at large before the Town Municipal Council, but in the meanwhile it was noticed that the petitioner had also encroached an area measuring 0.02 guntas on the National Highway and it was in this context the respondent 2 had issued notice to the petitioner to vacate such encroached portion; that the encroachment was not merely illegal but was causing inconvenience and was hazardous to the general public so also for movement of the vehicles on the National Highway; that the respondent 3 was fully satisfied about such encroachment by the petitioner and it had been brought to the notice of the petitioner as well as the authorities; that there is no justification for continuing the stay in favour of the petitioner which is required to be vacated etc. 8. A detailed statement of objections has also been filed on behalf of respondent 3. It is, inter alia, averred that the petition itself is not tenable; that the petitioner as of now is not a lessee under the respondent 3; that the lease period has already expired; that the subject-matter of lease was an area measuring 6,000 sq. 8. A detailed statement of objections has also been filed on behalf of respondent 3. It is, inter alia, averred that the petition itself is not tenable; that the petitioner as of now is not a lessee under the respondent 3; that the lease period has already expired; that the subject-matter of lease was an area measuring 6,000 sq. feet and the claim that it was measuring 120 feet - North to South and 50 feet - East to West is false; that the measurement was otherwise; that it was 50 feet - North to South and 120 feet - East to West; that the petitioner has encroached on the National Highway; that the sketch is also produced in this regard indicating the nature and extent of encroachment and accordingly steps were being taken to remove the encroachment for which efforts were being made for the past more than six to seven years; that though the petitioner had been put on notice in this regard even in the year 2000, no action was being taken; that the authorities acting under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') have been apprised of the same and requested to take further action; that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and interim order is to be vacated. 9. Submission of Sri Sachin, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has leasehold rights in respect of the land measuring an area of 6000 sq. feet; that it is not open to the second respondent to issue any notice to interfere with the leased property; that the second respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to issue a notice of this nature; that the notice deserves to be quashed. 10. It is also submitted by Sri Sachin, learned Counsel for the petitioner that if the show-cause notice is not quashed, the petitioner apprehends that the petrol bunk may be demolished within three days by the respondents and therefore protection is sought for from this Court. 11. 10. It is also submitted by Sri Sachin, learned Counsel for the petitioner that if the show-cause notice is not quashed, the petitioner apprehends that the petrol bunk may be demolished within three days by the respondents and therefore protection is sought for from this Court. 11. Submission of Smt. Jayshree G. Srinivas, learned Counsel for respondent 3-Municipal Council who has filed its statement of objections and also moved this application is that lease itself has expired; that the petitioner, in fact, is an unauthorised occupant as of now even under the Town Municipal Council; that the encroachment on the Highway by the petitioner had been noticed even several years earlier and steps were being taken to have the encroachment removed and the petitioner had been put on notice of the same, but the petitioner never responded; that the action proposed by the second respondent was not merely in the light of such past developments but as a general move by the Highway authorities for removing the Highway encroachments and it is a fact that the petitioner has encroached on the Highway which is required to be removed; that the notice issued is only for such purpose; that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned notice and interference at this stage is not warranted; that show-cause notice should not be quashed and accordingly prays for vacating the interim order and dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Sri B. Veerappa, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the action proposed is under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956; that the authorities are duty-bound to take such action whenever they find encroachments; that the notice indicates such action though it is a fact that they have not recited under what provision of which law the notice is issued, the body of the notice indicates that it is under the National Highways Act, 1956; and it is submitted that further action will be taken only under the provisions of the Act and whatever safeguards are provided to such encroachers as provided under the Act will be extended to the petitioner and further action will be taken in conformity with the provisions and rules framed there under. 13. I find that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. 13. I find that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has only claimed that he is a lessee under the respondent 3 and has projected as though his leasehold rights are being interfered with by the respondent 2 under the impugned notice. It is not factually correct. In fact, the petitioner's right under the lease granted by the respondent 3 has also come to an end, in the sense, lease period has expired and lease is not renewed. Petitioner as of now is not a lessee under a lease deed executed by the respondent 3. This aspect is not placed before this Court in the writ petition. 14. This apart, it is not as though the petitioner is taken by surprise on receiving the impugned notice at Annexure-C. The factum of the petitioner having encroached into the National Highway was very much within the knowledge of the petitioner; and not only the respondent 2, but also respondent 3-Council itself had apprised this position to the petitioner and had called upon the petitioner to remove the encroachment and considerable correspondences had been made in this regard even from the year 2000 onwards. 15. It is no shock or surprise for the petitioner to receive the impugned notice from the Highway Authorities for action proposed under Annexure-C under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner has suppressed true facts and also misrepresented the facts and has thus misused the process of this Court, for stalling further action in pursuance of the impugned notice. 16. Even otherwise, Annexure-C being a show-cause notice and the proposal being only for taking action in accordance with law, no infirmity can be attributed to the mere notice. 17. It is open to the petitioner to respond to the same. If the petitioner is an encroacher, action in accordance with law, is in fact, warranted and this Court cannot come in the way of such action being taken which is in the larger public interest and which is required to be implemented by the authorities functioning under the Act. 18. I do not find any scope or need for interference in a matter of this nature in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 19. Writ petition is more an abuse of the process of this Court than to ventilate any bona fide grievance. 18. I do not find any scope or need for interference in a matter of this nature in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 19. Writ petition is more an abuse of the process of this Court than to ventilate any bona fide grievance. In the circumstances, interim order is vacated and the writ petition itself is dismissed levying cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner. 20. Petitioner to remit this amount to the respondent 3 within a period of four weeks, failing which, it is open to the third respondent to apply to the registry for issue of a certificate to this effect for recovery of the cost amount as though it is a decree of the Civil Court. Registry to issue the certificate if applied for.