Judgment :- By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner claims to be the Convener of "Jayam Suya Udavi Kuzhu" which is functioning with the aid provided under the Scheme "Ooraga Magalir Mattrum Kuzhandaigal Membaattu Thitta Kuzhu" approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu and duly registered by the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975. The said Self Help Group was permitted to run a canteen in a small portion of the building at District Supply Office. Being the Convenor of the group, the petitioner was running the canteen. From 10. 1997, it was shifted to a new building. While so, on 4. 2005, the third respondent by his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1362/2005/B3 issued an order directing the petitioner to vacate the building and hand over vacant possession to the third respondent. But the petitioner did not vacate. Thereafter, on 24. 2005, the third respondent with the help of police locked the shop from outside and issued another notice to the petitioner by his proceedings Na.Ka.No.601/2005/M3/24. 2005 calling upon the petitioner to collect the materials found in the building and to hand over possession to the third respondent. The petitioner challenges the above proceedings of the respondent in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V. Arun, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. R. Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the third respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the same is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader would however submit that the proceedings of the third respondent dated 4. 2005 should be treated as a notice and even after the receipt of the said notice, since the petitioner did not give any explanation, the third respondent proceeded to lock the shop on 24. 2005 and then issued further proceedings dated 24. 2005. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that though the shop was let out to be run by the Self Help Group, it was run by the petitioner in her individual capacity and therefore necessity arose for the third respondent to vacate the shop. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. 7. A perusal of the impugned order dated 24. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that though the shop was let out to be run by the Self Help Group, it was run by the petitioner in her individual capacity and therefore necessity arose for the third respondent to vacate the shop. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. 7. A perusal of the impugned order dated 24. 2005 would go to show that it is not a notice as claimed by the Additional Government Pleader, but in fact, it is only a order because it directs the petitioner to vacate the building within a period of seven days from the receipt of a copy of the same. In the said order, the third respondent has stated that the shop is not run by the Self Help Group but it is run by the petitioner in her individual capacity which necessitated to vacate the shop. In my considered opinion, before passing the impugned order dated 24. 2005. it is absolutely necessary for the third respondent to have issued notice to the petitioner to call upon the petitioner to explain it. But no such notice had been issued and no opportunity was given to the petitioner. Thus the impugned order has been issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Though it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is running the shop only as a Convenor of the Group and not in her individual capacity, I am not inclined to go into those facts since it is immaterial to decide the issues in this writ petition. The said question is therefore left open. However, I am inclined to quash the impugned proceedings only on the ground that the same is passed without notice to the petitioner and without giving opportunity to her. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the third respondent is quashed with liberty to the third respondent to pass final orders after notice and affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.