Judgment 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorari challenging the notice of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.223/2004/E1, dated 09.01.2004, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not been taken by the respondent, under Section 223 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, with regard to the borewell said to have been dug by the petitioner in his property at Thally main road (Opp. Silk farm), Hosur. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent does not have jurisdiction, under Section 223 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, since the borewell has been in existence for more than 10 years and therefore, it cannot be said to be a new well. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that no prior notice has been issued to the petitioner to show that the borewell has been in existence for over 10 years, as claimed by the petitioner. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent, has submitted that the impugned proceedings, dated 09.01.2004, is only a notice asking the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not been initiated, under Section 223 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, as it is a new borewell, dug without the permission of the executive authority concerned. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent, this Court is of the considered view that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to submit his explanation, with regard to the borewell in question, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, based on which the respondent could initiate further action, in accordance with law. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 6. Hence, the petitioner is permitted to submit his explanation, with regard to the impugned proceedings of the respondent, in Na.Ka.No.223/2004/E1, dated 09.01.2004, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 6. Hence, the petitioner is permitted to submit his explanation, with regard to the impugned proceedings of the respondent, in Na.Ka.No.223/2004/E1, dated 09.01.2004, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receiving the explanation from the petitioner, it would be open to the respondent to take appropriate action thereon, on merits and in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ petition stands closed. No costs.