Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed challenging the notice issued by the second respondent for demolition of the building which according to the second respondent is an unauthorised construction. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the property in Door No.18, Kavery Nagar, Aranganathan Sub-way Road, Saidapet West, Chennai. The petitioner put up construction in the said property. On 22.4.1999, the second respondent called upon the petitioner to produce the copy of the plan for verification. The petitioner thereupon filed an application on 29.5.1999 to the second respondent for regularisation of the construction put up by him and he also paid certain amount towards regularisation fee. On 23.7.1999 the second respondent issued a notice for demolition of the unauthorised construction. On receipt of the demolition notice the petitioner made a representation on 19.8.1999 stating that the application for regularisation is pending. The second respondent called upon the petitioner to produce certain documents to examine the proposal for regularisation. The petitioner states that on 25.10.1999 he produced all the details required by the second respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent by letter No. REG./B6/18838/99 dated 16.2.2000 rejected the application for regularisation. The petitioner claims that thereafter he filed an appeal dated 14.3.2000 submitted on 19.4.2000. The first respondent pursuant to the appeal called upon the CMDA to give its remark in proceeding dated 6.6.2000. At that stage a demolition notice was served on 15.6.2000, forcing the petitioner to rush to this court. 3. On notice Mr.Sampath, learned counsel for the second respondent produced the original records today and stated that even before the appeal could be disposed of by the first respondent, the petitioner made another application for regularisation in Reg. No.34705 dated 8.7.2002 and that was considered and rejected on 4.5.2007 in Reg.I/B4 (BC2)/35349/03 . 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner now states that on 11.2.2009 the second respondent issued another notice calling upon the petitioner to submit all relevant records and that has been submitted by letter dated 27.2.2009. A copy of the reply letter dated 27.2.2009 has been furnished to the Planning Assistant, Grade I (Reg. Unit), who is present in court today along with photo copies of relevant documents. It is, therefore, clear that the issue has not reached finality and therefore there is no issue for this court to decide either way. 5. A copy of the reply letter dated 27.2.2009 has been furnished to the Planning Assistant, Grade I (Reg. Unit), who is present in court today along with photo copies of relevant documents. It is, therefore, clear that the issue has not reached finality and therefore there is no issue for this court to decide either way. 5. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to appear before the second respondent Member Secretary in person on 16.2.2012 along with all original documents that may be available with him and on such appearance the second respondent shall consider the plea on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner, if still aggrieved, is entitled to approach the higher forum as per law. 6. If the petitioner fails to appear before the second respondent on the said date and produce the documents, the second respondent is at liberty to deal with the issue in accordance with law. The authority shall refrain from taking any coercive steps till the issue is decided by the second respondent pursuant to the order of this court. 7. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.