Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 04.11.2010. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that the first respondent has passed an impugned order, dated 04.11.2010, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without furnishing the report of the Corporation of Chennai, based on which, the said impugned order had been passed. 4. Mr.A.Mohamed Ghouse, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 has submitted that there is an appellate remedy, provided, under Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought for, by the petitioner in the writ petition, cannot be granted, in view of the availability of the appellate remedy, provided under Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy, provided under Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971, if so advised, in the manner known to law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.