ORAL JUDGMENT S.B. Deshmukh, J.–We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, the Government advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties finally. 3. With the assistance of the counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the order impugned in this writ petition i.e. the order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the Chief Officer of the respondent No.1, Municipal Council. Learned senior counsel addressed this Court on the merits of the petition. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. We have also considered the pleadings i.e. writ petition, reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1. The order impugned seems to be in nature of administrative order passed by the respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that show cause notice had been issued by the respondent No. 1 i.e. the Chief Officer to the present petitioner. The subsequent order dated 2.6.2009 is an order directing the petitioner to stop the construction activity. It is apparent that even the time during which the petitioner was called upon to file its response/reply to the notice i.e. show, cause notice, the respondent No. 1 did not wait and the order dated 2.6.2009 has been passed and the petitioner is being affected by the said order. The petitioner filed this writ petition before this Court on 15.7.2009. We have considered our earlier order passed on 6.8.2009. In substance, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the respondent No. 1 Municipal Council after issuance of even occupancy certificate annexed with the approved plan for the proposed building, issued show cause notice and stop work notice dated 1.6.2009 and 2.6.2009 respectively. 4. We are not listing all the submissions made by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the counsel for the respective respondents since we are of the view to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the order dated 2.6.2009, permitting the present petitioner to file reply to show cause notice dated 1.6.2009. The respondent No. 1 after receipt of such reply, shall consider the reply and pass an appropriate further reasoned order in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 after receipt of such reply, shall consider the reply and pass an appropriate further reasoned order in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 2.6.2009, which is impugned' in this writ petition, is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file reply, to the show cause notice dated 1.6.2009 to the respondent No. 1 within two weeks from today. On receipt of such reply, the respondent No. 1 shall consider the reply and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the provisions of law and communicate the said order to the petitioner. In case the order which is likely to be passed by the respondent No.1, is adverse to the petitioner, protection in favour of the petitioner from such proposed adverse order is granted for the period of two weeks thereafter enabling the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of law. 6. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The petition stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs. An authentic copy is permitted to the parties as per usual procedure and on their demand. Petition allowed.