JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition is filed against the notice issued by the second respondent calling upon the petitioner for attending an enquiry to be conducted in pursuant to a complaint given by the respondents 4 to 7 herein and on behalf of the people at village alleging that the petitioner is preventing the public pathway to be used by the villagers. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners that the property is a private property to which he has got patta. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Civil Court decree has also been granted in his favour. 3. Whatever may be his contentions, he cannot stall the enquiry by filing this writ petition questioning the notice issued by the second respondent. It is well settled that no writ would lie against a notice unless such notice was issued without jurisdiction. The petitioner does not question the authority of the second respondent. Nothing prevents the petitioner from placing all these materials before the Authorities, if really, the petitioner has got those materials in his favour. The second respondent has called upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry. Therefore, it is highly premature to file this writ petition. Unfortunately, the writ petition is kept pending from the year 2003. 4. Therefore, I am of the view that the writ petition is premature and the same is dismissed as not maintainable. It is open to the second respondent to issue fresh notice to the petitioner, if it is so warranted by taking note of the present situation and as and when any such notice is issued to the petitioner, he is at liberty to reply to the said notice and place all the materials and contentions before the second respondent in support of his case. Thereafter, the second respondent shall decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. With these observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.