JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. This writ petition is filed for quashing the notice-dated 24.2.1998 (Annexure-7) issued by the respondent No. 2, notice dated 4.3.98 (Annexure-8) issued by the respondent No. 3 and notice dated 3.8.98 (Annexure-12) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was asked (1) to stop the construction work of her dwelling house, (2) for dismantling the bamboo fencing wall and also the constructed sanitary latrine immediately and (3) at remove construction made without taking permission of the Municipality within seven days from receipt of the notice (3.8.98), otherwise a penalty of Rs. 100/- per day from expiry of seven days from receipt of the said notice shall be charged on her till the date of removal or until the said unauthorized construction will be removed by the Agartala Municipal Council without further notice and expenditure for such removal will be charged on her as per provision of Tripura Municipal Act, 1994. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-Agartala Municipal authorities and Mr. N. Majumder, learned Counsel for the added respondent No. 4. 3. To decide the points involved in this writ petition, it is necessary to narrate brief facts of the case, which is, accordingly, stated hereunder: The writ petitioner submitted a building plan on 3.8.1988 to the respondents-Agartala Municipal authorities for construction of a double storied building on her homestead land along with required No Objection Certificate obtained from the added respondent No. 4, the occupier of the southern land of the house of the petitioner, so that she can keep two feet open space along the southern boundary in place of four feet as required by the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 as extended to Tripura. Accordingly, the respondents-Agartala Municipal authorities approved the said building plan. Thereafter, the petitioner also submitted a plan to the respondents-Agartala Municipal authorities for construction of a sanitary latrine on her homestead land, which was also sanctioned vide letter dated 6.1.89 (Annexure-5) issued by the respondent No. 3. On the basis of the said approved plan, the petitioner started construction, but could not complete the entire construction work of the building as per approved plan. Only the major portion of the ground floor work was completed within the stipulated time allowed by the respondents-Municipal authorities. On the basis of the said approved plan, the petitioner started construction, but could not complete the entire construction work of the building as per approved plan. Only the major portion of the ground floor work was completed within the stipulated time allowed by the respondents-Municipal authorities. But the sanitary latrine was completed within the specified period i.e. in the year 1989. The petitioner again approached the respondents-Agartala Municipal Council in the year 1997 with another plan for construction of the remaining portion of the original approved plan and the said new plan for construction of the balance work of the original plan was approved vide letter dated 2.9.97 issued by the respondent No. 2. 4. In the month of April, 1998, the added respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition being registered as Civil rule No. 114 of 1998 praying for a direction to the respondents-Municipal authorities to dismantle the alleged unauthorized construction made by the present petitioner in her holding. This Court vide order dated 11.6.98 dismissed the writ petition considering the fact that the Easement Act being not applicable in the State of Tripura, the Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction. It was also observed that the writ petitioner, the added respondent No. 4 herein, might seek proper remedy before the appropriate forum. The Agartala Municipal authorities were also asked to follow the Rules for construction of building, if any. 5. The respondent No. 3 on 3.8.98 (Annexure-12) issued a notice asking the petitioner to remove the construction made by the petitioner without taking permission of the Municipality within seven days from the receipt of the said notice otherwise a penalty of Rs. 100/- will be charged after expiry of the said period of seven days till the date of removal or the said unauthorized construction would be removed by the Agartala Municipal Council without further notice and expenditure for such removal will be charged on her as per provision of Tripura Municipal Act, 1994. For better appreciation, the Notice dated 3.8.98 is reproduced herein below: NOTICE Where as it has been reported that Smt. Shaymali Das (Ghosh) w/o Shri Chanchal Ghosh, Joynagar last gali road, Agartala has constructed building unauthorized on her premise, without keeping adequate space in south side as required in the approved plan vide No. 1469-72 dated. Sey/96 dt. 2.9.97. For better appreciation, the Notice dated 3.8.98 is reproduced herein below: NOTICE Where as it has been reported that Smt. Shaymali Das (Ghosh) w/o Shri Chanchal Ghosh, Joynagar last gali road, Agartala has constructed building unauthorized on her premise, without keeping adequate space in south side as required in the approved plan vide No. 1469-72 dated. Sey/96 dt. 2.9.97. Smt. Das (Ghosh) is hereby asked to remove construction made without taking permission of the Municipality within 7 days from the receipt of this notice otherwise a penalty of Rs. 100/- per day from expiry of 7 days from receipt of the notice shall be charged on her until the date of removal or the said unauthorized construction will be removed by the Agartala Municipal council without further notice and expenditure for such removal will be charged on her as per provision of Tripura Municipal Act, 1994. (P.J. Chanda) Assessor Agartala Municipal Council Agartala To Smt. Shyamali Das (Ghosh) Joynagar, last gali road Agartala Copy to: 6. The forenamed two notices dated 24.2.98 (Annexure-7) and 4.3.98 (Annexure-8) asking the petitioner to stop the constructional work forthwith as well as for dismantling the bamboo fencing wall and constructed sanitary latrine were issued before filing of the said Civil Rule No. 114 of 98. Being aggrieved by the earlier issued two notices, and the Notice dated 3.8.98, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking directions as noted above as well as on the ground that the notice dated 3.8.98 is not a notice simplicitor, but in the tune of an order for demolition of the construction work with some penal consequences. 7. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 as well as the added respondent No. 4 filed their counter-affidavit separately denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. 8. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner in support of the contentions made in the writ petition submits that the notice dated 3.8.98 did not mention anything as regards the extent of the construction made unauthorized requiring demolition inasmuch as Tripura Municipal Act does not prescribe any provision for keeping any specific space in the surroundings of the residential building. Therefore, the action of the respondents Municipal authorities is fully without any authority of law, illegal and mala fide. The Bengal Municipal Act has also no application after the aforesaid Tripura Municipal Act came into force, Mr. Therefore, the action of the respondents Municipal authorities is fully without any authority of law, illegal and mala fide. The Bengal Municipal Act has also no application after the aforesaid Tripura Municipal Act came into force, Mr. Bhowmik further submits. He has also contended that the said purported notice dated 3.8.98 is not a notice simplicitor, but an order of demolition with penal consequences without providing any opportunity to the petitioner as required by law inasmuch as without following the principle of natural justice. Mr. Bhowmik has strenuously argued that after dismissal of the Civil Rule No. 114/98 filed by the added respondent No. 4, the respondents Municipal authorities have no power to act on the basis of the earlier application made by the added respondent No. 4. But the respondent Municipal authorities without providing any prior show cause notice to the petitioner issued the impugned notice dated 3.8.98 in the nature of an order of demolition with penal consequences. Therefore, Mr. Bhowmik submits that the entire action of the respondents Agartala Municipal authorities is unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary as well as violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, for which, the notices impugned in this writ petition are liable to be set aside and quashed. Lastly, Mr. Bhowmik has also raised his voice to the aspect that the respondents cannot raise a plea of unauthorized construction after completion of ground floor work as well as after completion of the work of the sanitary latrine which were completed in the year 1989-90, particularly, accordingly to him, the respondent No. 4 has nothing to say as because she filed the Civil Rule No. 114 of 1998 which was dismissed with an observation that the writ petitioner might seek proper remedy before the appropriate forum and the respondents-Municipal authorities was also asked to act as per the Rules. 9. Per contra, Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3 submits that the Annexures-7, 8 and 12 of the writ petition are admittedly the show cause notices issued to the petitioner and against those notices; the instant writ petition does not lie. The proper remedy available to the petitioner was either to reply to the said show cause notices or to approach the respondents-Agartala Municipal authorities if she needed more times for compliance with the directions of the respondents. The proper remedy available to the petitioner was either to reply to the said show cause notices or to approach the respondents-Agartala Municipal authorities if she needed more times for compliance with the directions of the respondents. In support of his aforesaid contentions he relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse reported in 2004 (164) ELT 141 (SC), particularly he referred to Para-5 of the said report, which is quoted herein below: 5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court. Further, when the court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is not accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection granted. 10. Mr. Majumder further submits that the notice-dated 3.8.98 is not a final order for demolition, but a notice with action for non-compliance of the said notice. 10. Mr. Majumder further submits that the notice-dated 3.8.98 is not a final order for demolition, but a notice with action for non-compliance of the said notice. And according to him, the Municipal authorities issued the said notice after proper enquiry was done by the appropriate authority on the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 4 herein and it was necessary on the part of the Municipal authorities to maintain proper pollution free public life within the Municipal area. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to Para-6 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1,2 and 3 to submit that the construction was made by the petitioner in deviation of the approved plan as sanctioned by the Municipal authorities. Hence the petitioner is liable to demolish the unauthorized construction. 11. Mr. N. Majumder, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that though the respondent No. 4 gave no objection certificate to the petitioner for keeping two and half feet space from the boundary of her holding, but the petitioner without keeping the aforesaid space started construction. In the result, the daily life of the respondent No. 4 is affected. As confronted by this Court, Mr. Majumder, further submits that Annexure-12 to the writ petition is not the final order. It is a show cause. Hence the writ petitioner is not authorized by law to file the present writ petition. Proper remedy available to her is to show cause as asked by the Municipal authorities, he contends. 12. At this stage, Mr. N. Majumder, learned Counsel for the added respondent No. 4 further submits that the against the order dated 11.6.98 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 114/98, the respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal being W. A. 57/98 and the Division Bench dismissing the appeal, approved the decision of the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 9.9.98 passed in W.A. 57/98. Mr. Majumder has placed a copy of the order-dated 9.9.98 before this Court. Mr. Majumder has placed a copy of the order-dated 9.9.98 before this Court. It appears that the Division Bench had also given liberty to the appellant/respondent No. 4 that she might file an application in the present writ petition filed by the respondent No. 2 the present writ petitioner herein, to be impleaded her as party and the competent court would decide the issue that is in the instant writ petition and, accordingly, the respondent No. 4 herein applied for adding her as party which was accepted by this Court and added her as respondent No. 4 in the present writ petition. Accordingly she also filed her counter-affidavit in the present writ petition as stated (supra). 13. This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties as well as writ petition and counter affidavit filed by the respondents and the documents annexed thereto. It is an admitted position that the respondent No. 4 earlier filed a writ petition being civil Rule No. 114 of 98, which was dismissed, by this Court on 11.6.98. The notices dated 24.2.98 and 4.3.98 (Annexure-7 and 8 respectively) were the subject matters of the aforesaid Civil Rule, meaning thereby the Municipal authorities had the right to proceed with those notices, but they did not do so, rather the Municipal authorities issued another notice dated 3.8.98, Annexure-12 to the writ petition, asking the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized construction with some penal consequences. 14. The moot questions for decision in this case are whether notice dated 3.8.98 is a notice simplicitor or in the tune of notice a final order for demolition of the construction; and whether the construction in question is unauthorized one or it is deviated from the plan approved by the Municipal authorities ? 15. According to this Court, the aforesaid notice dated 3.8.98 has two parts-one part pertains to show cause and the other part relates to an order for demolition with some penal consequences and the authority can pass the second part i.e. the order with action of penal consequences after providing proper show cause notice and giving opportunity to a citizen like the petitioner which is totally absent in this case on the part Municipal authorities. When pointedly asked by this Court whether the construction in question is unauthorized construction or deviation from the plan approved by the Municipal authorities, Mr. When pointedly asked by this Court whether the construction in question is unauthorized construction or deviation from the plan approved by the Municipal authorities, Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1,2 and 3, in one time submits that it is unauthorized construction but in other times submits that it is deviation. According to him, unauthorized and the deviation though not synonyms, but almost similar. 16. 'Deviation' means departure from the original and 'unauthorized' means without authority. Here, in this case, this is an admitted position that the petitioner submitted a plan to the respondents-Municipal authorities and the said plan was approved by the respondents Municipal authorities, meaning thereby, the respondents-Municipal authorities authorized the writ petitioner to construct her building in accordance with the approved plan. According to the writ petitioner, she constructed the building accordingly. But the respondents' case is that the petitioner did not follow the approved plan and the construction in question is beyond the approved plan. This Court is of the considered opinion that the said construction cannot be treated unauthorized, rather that can be said deviation from the approved plan and the notice issued thereon was for demolition of alleged unauthorized construction. It is also not clear from the notice that which part of the alleged construction is unauthorized that has to be demolished by the writ petitioner. This Court is of the view that if the added respondent No. 4 has any grievance, she can easily raise the same before the appropriate forum as observed by this Court in its earlier order passed in Civil Rule No. 114/98. But she did not do so, meaning thereby that she was happy with the order of this Court. 17. If the construction has already been completed before issuance of the notice, (Annexure-12) impugned in the present writ petition, obviously it would create difficulty for the petitioner to demolish the same. But if the construction is beyond the approved plan, the petitioner is also bound to remove the same if there is no alternative to settle up the matter between the parties i.e. the respondent No. 4 and the writ petitioner and the Municipal authorities also do not permit the same. But if the construction is beyond the approved plan, the petitioner is also bound to remove the same if there is no alternative to settle up the matter between the parties i.e. the respondent No. 4 and the writ petitioner and the Municipal authorities also do not permit the same. It is to be noted here that the Annexure-7 and 8 to the writ petition are the show cause notices simplicitor and against those show cause notices, it appears from the record that the petitioner gave her reply to show cause notice and the Municipal authorities did not take any action against her till disposal of the aforesaid writ petition being No. Civil Rule 114/98. 17.1 This Court also examined the case of Special Director (supra). In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court interfered with the order of the High Court in the interim matter wherein the Apex Court held that in a writ petition questioning legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties, unless the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. 18. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Apex Court. In the instant case, the question of stalling the enquiries and retarding the investigative process to find actual facts by the Municipal authorities does not arise at all as the respondents Municipal authorities by Annexure-12 has already decided that the petitioner has completed construction unauthorized and asked her to demolish the same within a particular period and for non-compliance with the direction given, the petitioner was also asked to pay Rs. 100/- per day after seven days of the receipt of the said notice till the demolition of construction is made and if the petitioner would not demolish the same, then the Municipal authorities will demolish the construction and cost incurred for the purpose has to be paid by the petitioner. 100/- per day after seven days of the receipt of the said notice till the demolition of construction is made and if the petitioner would not demolish the same, then the Municipal authorities will demolish the construction and cost incurred for the purpose has to be paid by the petitioner. According to this Court, the said notice (Annexure-12) is in the tune of notice, a final order and not a notice simplicitor. Hence the aforesaid notice (Annexure-12) in the garb of a final order is hereby set aside and quashed. However, the respondents-Municipal authorities are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner further in accordance with law providing her opportunity to make out her case before the Municipal authorities. As the Annexure-12 is set aside and quashed, consequent thereto, Annexure-7 and 8 are also set aside and quashed as those have lost their force after compliance of the same by the petitioner.