Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order passed under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), calling upon the petitioner to remove the house alleged to be constructed on the Government land. 2. The only ground to challenge the order is that the impugned order is not in consonance with Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, which envisages show cause notice of seven days, against the proposal of removal, with further stipulation, that explanation submitted is to be considered by competent authority by passing a detailed order. 3. Section 28 of the Act reads as under: "28. Prevention of encroachment – (1) The Highways Authority or any person authorised by it in this behalf shall, at such time as may be considered necessary, conduct such checks and periodical inspection of the highway boundaries, with the view to ensure the prevention of unauthorised encroachment and the removal of such encroachment. (2) The Highways Authority or any person autorised by it in this behalf, may- (i) Remove, without any notice, any movable temporary structure, enclosure, stall, booth, any article whatsoever hawked, exposed or displayed for sale or any other thing whatsoever by way of encroaching the highway or in any area where the construction or development or a highway is undertaken or proposed to be undertaken; (ii) Remove any immovable strucuture, whether permanent or temporary in nature, encroaching the highway or in the area vested with Government under this Act, after issuing a show cause notice against such removal, returnable within a period of seven days from the date of receipt thereof: Provided that any representation received within the time limit shall be considered by the authority or officer concerned before passing final orders." 4. The impugned order, when tested with the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, it can be safely said, that the impugned order is not sustainable in law, as in the garb of 7 days' notice, final order has been passed, asking the petitioner to remove the construction without giving opportunity to the petitioner to file objection to the proposed action. The impugned order cannot be also said to be one under Section 28 (ii) of the Act. 5. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order cannot be also said to be one under Section 28 (ii) of the Act. 5. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed, with liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law, if so advised. 6. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.