Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The petitioner has stated that he is a Police Contractor, engaged in the execution of minor civil works including repair and maintenance of Police Buildings in and around Tirunelveli District. The procedure involved in allotting these civil works was by inviting tender schedules from the Police Contractors and the Contractors quoting the lowest tender amount were awarded the contract. The costs involved in preparing the tender schedules accrued on the applicant Contractors. While so, the petitioner had received the communication, dated 9. 2002, issued by the second respondent. It was stated that in consonance with the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.1789/PWD, dated 212. 1992, the cost of the tender schedules and the sales tax as per the audit notes of the A.G/Madurai for the year 2001-2002, vide Lr.No.AG Audit MDU/ISC.VIII/19-3/2001-2002, dated 27. 2001, would be realised from the specified contractors, including the petitioner, for the tender schedules issued to them from the years 1993-1994 to 20002001. .3. It has been further stated that the second respondent had issued a show cause notice in K3/40656/02, dated 112. 2002, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why recovery should not be made from him for the tender schedules as noted therein. The petitioner had given a detailed representation, dated 212. 2002, wherein it was pointed out that the alleged cost of Rs.100/-per schedule had been arbitrarily multiplied by four as no contractor could give more than one tender for one work. The petitioner has also submitted that insofar as the entrustment of work is concerned, they were valued at less than Rs.10,000/- each and no tender schedule had been issued to the petitioner as the works had always been entrusted by issuance of a memo of the Police Department. .However, without properly considering the representation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent had issued a notice bearing C.No.K3/40656/02, served on the petitioner, on 11. 2003, seeking to recover a sum of Rs.4,04,352/- as the cost of the tender schedules and the sales tax thereon. The impugned notice had also stated that the distraint proceedings will be initiated against the immovable properties belonging to the petitioner, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act 1864, (Act II of 1864) within fifteen days of the receipt of the impugned notice. 4. The impugned notice had also stated that the distraint proceedings will be initiated against the immovable properties belonging to the petitioner, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act 1864, (Act II of 1864) within fifteen days of the receipt of the impugned notice. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned notice had been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and that it is arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel had also submitted that there is no reason shown to calculate the rate per schedule multiplied by four, when one work was allotted to one contractor. By the impugned notice the respondents were seeking to recover the costs for the works relating to the years from 1993-1994 to 2000-2001, after nearly 10 years thereafter. In such circumstances, the impugned notice, dated 11. 2003, issued by the second respondent is liable to be set aside as being arbitrary, without jurisdiction, illegal and void. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned notice had been issued to the petitioner only for the actual amount due from him and that the said notice had been issued in accordance with law. The petitioner has not shown as to how the impugned notice of the second respondent, dated 11. 2003, is arbitrary and devoid of merits. The said notice has been issued only after considering the representations of the petitioner, dated 212. 2002 and 1. 2003. The amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner is due from him, as it includes the costs of tender schedules and the sales tax, which the petitioner had defaulted in paying. .6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned notice of the second respondent, dated 11. 2003. Pursuant to the order, dated 111. 2002, passed by this Court in W.P.No.41067 of 2002, the second respondent had issued the impugned order against the petitioner, only after considering his representations, dated 212. 2002, and 1. 2003. 2003. Pursuant to the order, dated 111. 2002, passed by this Court in W.P.No.41067 of 2002, the second respondent had issued the impugned order against the petitioner, only after considering his representations, dated 212. 2002, and 1. 2003. The amount of Rs.4,04,352/-, ordered to be remitted by the petitioner is towards the cost of tender schedules and the sales tax due from the petitioner. In fact, before the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent, a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner and thereafter, the impugned order had been passed, only after considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner. The statement of accounts indicating the amounts payable by the petitioner as arrears of the cost of tender schedules and sales tax had also been supplied to the petitioner. 7. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been in a position to say as to whether the properties of the petitioner, sought to be attached under the provision of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, (Act II of 1864) at Palayamcottai Taluk at Kulavanigarpuram, had already been sold, as the interim order of injunction granted by this court, on 2. 2003, in W.P.M.P.No.3832 of 2003, in W.P.No.3056 of 2003, had been vacated, by an order of this Court, dated 30.9.2003, for non-compliance of the conditions imposed by this Court, by its earlier order, dated 2. 2003. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.