JUDGMENT :- M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. In this writ petition, challenge is made to the order dated 6th June, 2013 passed by the second respondent, under which, it has been stated that in view of unauthorized construction put up in Ka.Sa.No.495/3A, Villavankurichi Village, Coimbatore Taluk and District, the Corporation of Coimbatore will take action to lock and seal the building/superstructure and addressees of the said notice were called upon to remove the articles and apparels from the building within 24 hours from the time of receipt of the notice. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred, among other things, that the writ petitioner is one of the partners of M/s. Vasanthi Motors, and the said partnership firm is a dealer of M/s. Hero Moto Corporation Limited, New Delhi and he along with her daughter-in-law namely, Ms. Poonguzhali applied for dealership for selling motor cycle manufactured by the above said company and they were awarded a letter of intent on 9.11.2009. The petitioner would further aver that after obtaining the planning permission, they had put up construction and M/s. Hero Moto Corporation Limited, also imposed certain conditions with regard to the maintenance of the show room, workshops, etc. and the time for providing the infrastructure facilities was also extended from time to time and now the building is in complete shape and is being used for carrying on business as stipulated in the dealership agreement. The petitioner would further state that on an earlier occasion, the second respondent herein issued notice dated 6.2.2012 with regard to refusal of planning permission and challenging the vires of the same, the daughter-in-law of the writ petitioner as well one K. Viswanathan filed W.P.No. 3892 of 2012 and the First Bench of this Court, taking into consideration the appeal petition filed by the petitioners therein against the above said order, passed final orders on 21.2.2012 directing the concerned authority to dispose of the appeal petition as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of that order, and till the disposal of the appeal, directed the second respondent namely, the Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation (East Zone), Coimbatore not to demolish the superstructure put up by the petitioners and at the same time, the petitioners therein were also directed not to put up any further construction. 3. 3. The petitioners would further state that after completion of the construction of the building, it was not assessed to property tax, etc and therefore, the petitioners in W.P.No. 3892 of 2012 once again filed W.P.No. 7812 of 2012 on the file of this Court praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents namely, the Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore and the Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore to assess the building constructed in the above said survey number. A single Bench of this Court, after taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation, has passed an order directing the writ petitioners therein to approach the respondents with a request to assess the building within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such request being made, the respondents were directed to consider and pass appropriate orders of take suitable decision within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and the writ petition was disposed of with the above direction. 4. The writ petitioner would further state that in terms of the above said order, the building in question has been assessed to property tax and electricity service connection and water and drainage connections were also provided and the business carried on by the writ petitioner has also been registered with the Central Board of Excise and Customs and it is also registered with the Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Tamil Nadu in Tax Prayer’s Identification No. 33102206156 on 4.1.2010. 5. The writ petitioner would further state that to her shock and surprise, on behalf of the first respondent, the second respondent has issued notice dated 10.08.2012 calling upon her to explain as to the unapproved construction after the order dated 21.2.2012 in W.P.No. 3892 of 2012. In the said notice, the alleged construction put up by the petitioners in the said writ petition namely, Mr. Viswanathan and Mrs. Poonguzhali after the above said order has also been pointed out. 6. In the said notice, the alleged construction put up by the petitioners in the said writ petition namely, Mr. Viswanathan and Mrs. Poonguzhali after the above said order has also been pointed out. 6. In response to the said notice, they submitted their explanation dated 18.08.2012 stating, among other things, that no construction has been put up contrary to the above said order passed by this Court and they have also not put up any unauthorized construction as alleged by the respondents. It is further stated by them that they have not increased either the area or the height of the building even by an inch, and they have put up a compound wall, since their neighbour requested for their privacy. 7. The writ petitioner would further state that on 18.9.2012, the officials attached to the Coimbatore Corporation entered the premises and threatened the Manager to close down the shop and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No. 25796 of 2012 praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent not to interfere with the running of business in the aforesaid premises. However, the above said writ petition (W.P.No. 25796 of 2012) was withdrawn on 18.12.2012, and accordingly an order was passed by this Court to the said effect. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No. 2145 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore against the Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, and along with the said suit, an application seeking relief of ad-interim injunction was filed in I.A.No. 2292 of 2012 and initially interim order was granted, later on it was not extended and to extend the said interim order, he filed I.A.No. 2881 of 2012, and the same is pending adjudication. 8. 8. The writ petitioner would further state that though the appeal petition is pending and this Court by order dated 21.2.2012 passed in W.P.No. 3892 of 2012 has also directed the concerned appellate authority to pass orders on the appeal petition, no orders have been passed yet and in spite of the pendency of the appeal petition, on 10.06.2013, the officials of the respondents had locked and sealed the premises and therefore, not only the petitioner is put into difficulties, but also the customers who have booked for purchase of new vehicles and also some customers who have entrusted the vehicles for maintenance, and therefore prays for quashing the said impugned notice and for a further direction to remove the lock and seal put on the premises in question. 9. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating among other things, that originally the local authority granted planning permission on 29.10.2010 to construct ground plus two floors for carrying on retail business store, and subsequently, the petitioner obtained revised planning permission on 7.2.2011 for the purpose of putting up professional consulting office without any deviation from the planning permission. Inspection was also done, wherein major deviations were noted and the respondents would further aver that the show room being run by the petitioner is without having any emergency exit and with only two feet passage access and in the event of any fire accident, it will be difficult for the fire tenders to enter into the premises. 10. Insofar as the contention put forth by the petitioner that the property has not been assessed to property tax, the respondent would state that in compliance of the order passed in W.P.No. 7812 of 2012, the property has been assessed to tax and the assessment of property tax will not clothe the petitioner with legal right to continue in occupation of the premises, which has been put up unauthorisedly. 11. The respondents would further state that action to lock and seal the premises was done as major deviations have been noted and since action has been carried on in accordance of the provisions of law, the writ petition lacks merit and substance and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Mr. 11. The respondents would further state that action to lock and seal the premises was done as major deviations have been noted and since action has been carried on in accordance of the provisions of law, the writ petition lacks merit and substance and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the appeal petition is pending, and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.2.2012 has specifically directed to dispose of the appeal petition, the appeal petition has not been disposed of so far. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on 10.08.2012, on behalf of the Corporation of Coimbatore, notice has been sent to the petitioner calling upon her to explain the unauthorized construction put up after the order dated 21.2.2012 passed in W.P.No. 3892 of 2012, for which the daughter-in-law of the petitioner as well one K. Viswanathan sent a detailed reply to the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation on 18.08.2012 and no orders have been passed on the same. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the impugned notice dated 6.6.2013, either the earlier notice dated 10.08.2012, or the reply submitted by Mr. K. Viswanathan and Mrs. P. Poonguzhali dated 18.08.2012 found a reference and the impugned order, on the face of it, is unsustainable. 13. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that because of locking and sealing of the premises, without granting any time, the customers are put to difficulty as they are unable to take delivery of the motor vehicles and also take back the vehicles, which have entrusted for maintenance, and hence prayed for allowing the writ petition. 14. Per contra, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Advocate General would vehemently contend that the petitioner has put up construction in deviation from the sanctioned plan and as such the construction is unauthorized one and accordingly, notice was issued to them, which was challenging by Mr. K. Viswanathan and Mrs. 14. Per contra, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Advocate General would vehemently contend that the petitioner has put up construction in deviation from the sanctioned plan and as such the construction is unauthorized one and accordingly, notice was issued to them, which was challenging by Mr. K. Viswanathan and Mrs. P. Poonguzhali by filing W.P.No. 3892 of 2012 wherein this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the writ petitioner not to put up further construction and the respondents-Coimbatore Corporation was also directed not to demolish the superstructure, and in violation of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has put up additional construction and the respondents had issued the notice dated 10.08.2012 and the petitioner has failed to putforth any plausible explanation as to the alleged deviation and since the petitioner continues to use the premises in question, the impugned notice was issued on 6.6.2013 informing the petitioner that the premises in question will be put under lock and seal and the petitioner was also called upon to remove the valuable articles lying inside the building and as the petitioner did not properly respond, the premises was locked and sealed on 10.06.2013. 15. It is the further submission of the learned Advocate General that in W.P.No. 7812 of 2012, which was filed by the writ petitioner to assess the property in question, the order passed in W.P.No. 3892 of 2012 has been suppressed and that apart, the petitioner filed O.S.No. 2145 of 2012 praying for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the officials of the Corporation of Coimbatore from in any way interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and the petitioner thereafter has also filed W.P.No. 25796 of 2012 before this Court and filing of this writ petition has been totally suppressed, and therefore, it is pointed out by the learned Advocate General that since the petitioner on more than one occasion has suppressed the material facts, he is not entitled to any indulgence from this Court and since action has already been taken in accordance with the provisions of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act and Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, interference may not be warranted by this Court. 16. 16. This Court paid its best attention to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General and also perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and the typed set of documents. 17. The First Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2012 disposed of W.P.No. 3892 of 2012, filed by K. Viswanathan and P. Poonguzhali, directing the respondents therein to dispose of the appeal petition filed by the petitioners therein as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and till then, directed the officials of the respondents not to demolish the superstructure put up by them and also directed the petitioners therein no to put up further construction. The appeal petition dated 27.7.2011 is pending disposal on the file of the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai-9, and they sent a letter dated 8.10.2012 to the above said persons calling upon them to explain with regard to the deviations in construction within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which appropriate orders will be passed with the records available with the Government. The said letter would disclose that the appeal petition filed by the above said persons is yet to be disposed of. On 10.08.2012, on behalf of the Corporation of Coimbatore, notice was issued, wherein it has been stated, among other things, that the Coimbatore Corporation has refused permission for construction of the building and as against the said refusal, W.P.No. 3892 of 2012 was filed, wherein the Court directed the petitioners not to put up further construction and in violation of the orders of this Court passed in the above said writ petition, K. Viswanathan and P. Poonguzhali, the petitioners, had put up additional construction and they were asked to explain their stand. In response to the above said notice, the above said persons by reply dated 18.08.2012 had stated that they have not put up any additional construction as alleged by the respondents. Admittedly, no orders have been passed in respect of petitioners’ reply dated 18.8.2012. However, on 6.6.2013, the second respondent issued the impugned notice stating that they are locking and sealing the premises in question and called upon K. Viswanathan and P. Poonguzhali to remove the articles from the premises in question. Admittedly, no orders have been passed in respect of petitioners’ reply dated 18.8.2012. However, on 6.6.2013, the second respondent issued the impugned notice stating that they are locking and sealing the premises in question and called upon K. Viswanathan and P. Poonguzhali to remove the articles from the premises in question. A perusal of the reference cited in the said notice would disclose that the earlier notice dated 10.08.2012 as well as the reply dated 18.08.2012 submitted by the petitioners have not been referred to at all. 18. As already stated above, the appeal petition is yet to be disposed of and the reply dated 18.08.2012 submitted by K. Viswanathan and P. Poonguzhali, in response to the notice dated 10.08.2012, have also not been considered and disposed of. 19. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner today has filed an affidavit of M.C. Palanisamy, the husband of the writ petitioner herein and in paragraph-2, it has been stated that the suits filed by his wife in O.S.No.2295 of 2012 on the file of District Munsif, Coimbatore, as well as O.S.No.885 of 2012 filed by her on the file of Sub-Judge, Coimbatore will be withdrawn unconditionally. The said affidavit is taken on record. 20. Since in the impugned notice, there is no reference to the notice dated 08.08.2012, as well as the reply dated 18.08.2012 filed by the petitioner and that the appeal petition dated 27.07.2011 has not yet been disposed of, this Court is of the view that the impugned order exhibits the non-application of mind on the part of the respondents and hence, it is liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 06.06.2013 on the file of the second respondent is quashed. The respondents are directed to remove the lock and seal put on the petitioner’s premises in question forthwith. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed. The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The impugned notice dated 06.06.2013 on the file of the second respondent is quashed. The respondents are directed to remove the lock and seal put on the petitioner’s premises in question forthwith. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed. The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the stand taken by the respective parties with regard to the construction put up in the above said survey number (Ka.Sa.No.495/3A, Villavankurichi Village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District), and the respondents are at liberty to initiate further action in accordance with law, subject to the result of the appeal pending before the Government.