Judgment :- The petitioner was running a juice stall at "Kamaraj Bus Stand", Dindigul, which is owned by the respondent/Municipality. The petitioner was allotted a place of 5 ft x 6 ft. to sell apple juice and other fruit products on the said bus stand by the order of the Director of Municipal Administration dated 24. 1987. The Municipal Committee was directed to charge a nominal rate and also to pass a council resolution for approval by the Director. Thereafter, the Council passed a resolution on 10. 1990 granting permission to the petitioner to run a juice stall on the South side of the telephone booth, opposite to the booking counter. In that resolution, 9 conditions were imposed and ti was also stated that the licence will be valid for a period of one year from the date. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was running the said shop and he had not violated any condition. However, the respondent tried to interfere with the running of the said juice stall at the instance of his rival traders and revenue officials of the municipality on 8. 1992 and prevented the petitioner from carrying on his business, which has forced petitioner to file a suit before the District Munsif Court, Dindigul in O.S.No.1157/1992 with a prayer for preventing the respondents or any other person from interfering in carrying on his business and that he should be dispossessed only by due process of law. The said Court framed an issue stating that whether the suit was maintainable and that when the petitioner was not having any licence but only a lease, his right can be terminated only by a due process of law. The suit was decreed on 20.10.1985. The respondent had not challenged the same. .3. Thereafter, the respondent gave a permission to continue run the shop but enhanced the rent. The petitioner had been paying the rent and enjoying the possession of the shop. But, for the reasons best known to the respondent, the respondent came to damage the shop and removed all the apparatus including juice machine on 12. 2007. 4. The petitioner sent a legal notice. The petitioner had been paying the rent and enjoying the possession of the shop. But, for the reasons best known to the respondent, the respondent came to damage the shop and removed all the apparatus including juice machine on 12. 2007. 4. The petitioner sent a legal notice. Thereafter, he filed the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to continue the licence with regard to the rented place and thereby permit the petitioner to run the juice stall at Dindigul Bus Stand and direct the respondent to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. In this matter, the respondents counsel was directed to take notice and they were directed to produce records. The respondent/Municipality had filed a counter affidavit. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 6. 2007, the respondents counsel produced some files relating to the subject matter of the Writ Petition. 5. The stand of the respondent was that prior notice was given to the petitioner on 12. 2006 and as the petitioner was not available and he was stated to be in Madurai and it could not be served in person in Madurai. Therefore, it was affixed in the premises. The second notice was given on 1. 2007. Once again, endorsement was made stating that it was merely affixed and nothing was mentioned about the availability of the petitioner in the disputed premises. 6. Thereafter, on 12. 2007, an eviction notice was given. It is stated to be a final notice and it was stated on the reverse side of the notice that as the licensee was not available, it was affixed in the premises. Nothing is found in the file with reference to any notice being sent to the petitioner by post as required under law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent was high handed and arbitrary and it had also violated the judgment and decree of the civil suit. He also contended that the petitioner is having lease, which the respondent cannot deny the same. 8. With reference to the relief sought for, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner wants to continue business and that he was not pressing the demand for compensation as prayed for. .9. He also contended that the petitioner is having lease, which the respondent cannot deny the same. 8. With reference to the relief sought for, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner wants to continue business and that he was not pressing the demand for compensation as prayed for. .9. The petitioner has also stated that he did not receive any notice as alleged in the counter statement and he disputed the so-called affixure made by the respondent. With reference to the contention that the petitioner was a lease holder, the same cannot be agreed as can be seen from the relevant documents that he was only a licensee giving limited powers. Thereafter, he was only a licensee by sufferance. 10. It must be stated that the petitioner is not an encroacher and he is entitled for due notice. The only question that has to be considered is whether due notice was given before the petitioner was evicted from the premises. 11. At this juncture, referring to section 338 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 would be useful for the purpose. Hence, the same is extracted hereunder: "338. Consequences of failure to obtain licences, etc., or of breach of the same-If, under this Act or any rule, by-law or regulation made under it, the licence or permission of the council or executive authority or registration in the municipal office is necessary for doing of any act, and if such act is done with out such licence or permission or registration, or in a manner inconsistent with the terms of any such licence or permission, then- (a) the executive authority may by notice require the persons so doing such act to alter, remove, or, as far as practicable, restore to its original state the whole or any part of any property, movable or immovable, public or private, affected thereby within a time to be specified in the notice and further." 12. Therefore, it requires notice to be given to the party. Section 331 of covers as to how notice should be served. "331. Therefore, it requires notice to be given to the party. Section 331 of covers as to how notice should be served. "331. Method of serving documents-(1) When any notice or other document is required by this Act, or by any rule, by-law, regulation or order made under it, to be served on, or sent to any person, the service or sending thereof may be effected- .(a) by giving or tendering the said document to such person; or (b) if such person is not found, by leaving such document at his last known place of abode or business or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member or servant of his family; or .(c) if such person does not reside in the municipality and his address elsewhere is known to the executive authority by sending the same to him by post registered; or .(d) if none of the means aforesaid be available, by affixing the same on some conspicuous part of such place of abode or business. .(2) When the person is an owner or occupier or any building or land, it shall not be necessary to name the owner or occupier in the document, and in the case of joint owners and occupiers it shall be sufficient to serve it on, or send it to, one of such owners or occupiers. .(3) Whenever in any bill, notice form or other document served or sent under this Act a period is fixed within which any tax or other sum is to be paid or any work executed, or anything provided, such period shall, in the absence from its Act of any distinct provision to the contrary, be calculated from the date of such service or sending. 13. In the present case, since the petitioner was not residing within the territorial limits of the Municipality, the respondent ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under Section 331(1)(c), extracted above. That has not been done in the case. This Court by a judgment reported in 1968 (1) MLJ 403 (P.V. Srinivasan v. The Prescribed Judicial Authority (District Judge), Salem and another, interpreted the question of notice provided under the said Act and it held as follows: "The method of serving a notice is prescribed in section 331(1) of the Act. That has not been done in the case. This Court by a judgment reported in 1968 (1) MLJ 403 (P.V. Srinivasan v. The Prescribed Judicial Authority (District Judge), Salem and another, interpreted the question of notice provided under the said Act and it held as follows: "The method of serving a notice is prescribed in section 331(1) of the Act. It provides that when any notice is required to be served on any person by the Act, the service may be effected (a) by giving or tendering the said documents to such person, or (b) if such person is not found, by leaving such documents at his last known place of abode or business or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member or servant of his family. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this petition to consider the other modes of service provided for in the section. ...Section 331(1) as already pointed out, requires that the service of notice may be effected by giving or tendering the notice to the person. This admittedly was not done. When a person is not found, the alternative method of service is by leaving the document at the last known place of abode or business. But the mode of service by leaving the document at the last known place of abode or business is available only when the person is not found." 14. However, in that judgment this Court did not go into the application of Section 331 (1)c) of the Act. Therefore, unless notice is effected in the manner known to law, it cannot be accepted as a notice. The file produced by the respondent does not inspire any confidence because it appears that it has not been kept in the course of business and certain loose sheets have been stitched together and kept in the file and produced before this Court. Notes papers were not found and in many of the draft minutes initial or signature of the Commissioner is not found. While in the first notice dated 12. 2006, it is stated that licensee was in Madurai and therefore, it was affixed in the premises, in the second notice dated 1. 2007, even that statement is missing and merely says it was affixed. From these endorsements, one thing is clear. The respondent is aware of the petitioners residence and that he was in Madurai. 2006, it is stated that licensee was in Madurai and therefore, it was affixed in the premises, in the second notice dated 1. 2007, even that statement is missing and merely says it was affixed. From these endorsements, one thing is clear. The respondent is aware of the petitioners residence and that he was in Madurai. That fact could be seen even from the original allotment of the letter wherein only Madurai address is given. Therefore, the respondent cannot feign any ignorance over the residential address of the petitioner. 15. When the Act requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it ought to be done only in that manner and not in any other manner. Therefore, in the absence of the respondent not having served the petitioner, terminating his licence cannot be proper. The action of the respondent cannot be appreciated. On the contrary, it should be condemned. The respondent being a statutory authority cannot throw their weight and physically dispossess the petitioner without following the due procedure. It is clear that the respondent acted on the resolution of the Municipality dated 211. 2006 wherein the members have expressed their displeasure about the juice stall. But, that is not a ground for the respondent to act in such a cavalier fashion. 16. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue to run the juice stall in the premises allotted to him before he was dispossessed without any let or hindrance by the authorities. 17. But the question does not end here since the District Munsif Court itself had given an opportunity to the respondent to evict the petitioner in the manner known to law, the respondent/ municipality itself ought to have adopted due process in law in denying the petitioners permission to run the juice stall. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the petitioner had not received any of the notices and he is adopting hide and seek in order to avoid the same. Hence, this Court has directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to receive the copy of first notice dated 12. 2006, which was sought to be served on the petitioner. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner has duly received the same and he is not disputing the same. Hence, this Court has directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to receive the copy of first notice dated 12. 2006, which was sought to be served on the petitioner. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner has duly received the same and he is not disputing the same. Therefore, this will be taken as due service of the first notice on the petitioner. Since notice has been now served to the petitioner through his counsel, he is bound to give reply to the said notice within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such receipt, the respondent can take further action in accordance with law and take appropriate proceedings against the petitioner. 18. The petitioner is allowed to run the Juice Stall in the place allotted before he was dispossessed on 112. 2007 within one week from today without any hindrance. The Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No cots. Consequently, M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2007 is closed.