ORDER 1. Brief facts of the case is that appellant is exclusive owner in possession of a house and a shop situated at Gandhinagar, Jammu. Copy of the ownership is enclosed at Annexure "A". Appellant is a retired Govt. employee having unimpeachable Reputation in the society. The appellant has constructed a shop in the year 2000 and remained closed for the last couple of years and same is being used by the appellant . Respondents without any reasons had issued notice no. MJ/CEO/629 dated 27.9.2013 under the provisions of COBO Act with the a allegations that appellant has started construction work of the shop at first floor for commercial purpose which is quite contrary to the facts and existing position on spot and operation of the impugned notice had been stayed in case title Karan Singh v. JMC which is still subjudiced before this Tribunal. Further stated that when the matter was already subjudiced before this Tribunal and in the said notice shop has not been mentioned and instead of taking action against the temporary shed sealed the shop which was not subject matter of dispute between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed objection in the shape of written arguments and section 13 of COBO Act is reproduced hereunder; 13. Appeals (1) An appeal against the order of an Authority made under (section 5 or Section 7 shall lie to such person as the Government may by notifications in the Government Gazette, appoint in this behalf ( hereinafter called "the Appellate Officer) within seven days after the date of the aforesaid order of the Authority. The memorandum of appeal need not be accompanied by copy of the order appealed from. (2) Where any appeal is preferred from an order of an Authority, the appellate Officer shall not stay the enforcement of that order unless the authority concerned is given an opportunity of being heard: Provided that where the erection or re-erection of any building was not completed on the day on which an order was made under section 7 for the demolition of such building the appellate authority shall not make any order for the stay of enforcement of such order unless such security, as may be sufficient in the opinion of the appellate officer, has been given by the appellant for not proceeding with such construction, erection or work pending the disposal of appeal. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate Officer as expeditiously as possible. (4) The costs of any appeal under this section shall be in the discretion of the appellate Officer. 3. And prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant had argued that u/s 14 of control of building operation the jurisdiction of other Court is barred and only this Tribunal has power to hear the matter against the respondent u/s 8 of the Control of Building Operation Act. The authority concerned under sub section (2) has power to remove this seal or under an order made in appeal under this Act, Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that appeal is still subjudice before this Tribunal and in case commission of any violation of the BOCA act, the appellant has to face the consequences and respondent were under obligation to seek the proper permission from Tribunal to seal the premises and it appears that the respondents are themselves violator of the law. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that before taking the action against the appellant, opportunity of being heard has been not provided. The impugned notice is bad in the eyes of law. 4. In support of the arguments, learned counsel of the appellant have referred a judgment reported in AIR 2009 SC 195 titled Municipal Corporation v. Inderjeet Singh. Para no. 16 of judgment is relevant which is reproduced hereunder: Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Patwalla on Aligarh Muslim University and others to contend that in certain situations an order passed in violation/non-compliance of the principles of natural justice need not be set aside by High Court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution of India. We are, however, not conferred herein with such a situation. 5. Respondent no. 1 preferred an appeal against the order of the Commissioner directing the demolition of the construction. The appellate Court was entitled to consider as to whether the mandatory legal provisions had been complied with or not. The proviso appended to section of the Act in no uncertain terms provided for an opportunity of hearing before an order of demolition is passed. It is imperative in character but the said provision had not been complied with. Action on the part of the appellant, therefore, was highly arbitrary. The proviso appended to section of the Act in no uncertain terms provided for an opportunity of hearing before an order of demolition is passed. It is imperative in character but the said provision had not been complied with. Action on the part of the appellant, therefore, was highly arbitrary. In Alligarh Muslim University (supra) itself, the court noticed the decision of the Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others wherein it was held that non compliance of the principles of natural justice by itself causes prejudice. No doubt the development of law in the field would have also top be kept in mind. The said decisions, however, was rendered in the fact of the said case as it was a case of overstay of leave by an employee. It was found that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner therein. 6. Also cited another judgment decided by this Tribunal in case Chander Kant jain v. BOCA on 22.2.2013. Learned counsel for the appellant also reported judgment titled BOCA authority v. Rohit Jain delivered in OWP/892/2001. Since the appeal against the impugned order is already subjudice before this Tribunal and the appellant can not be deprived of the property without following the due course of law. 7. Keeping in view of the facts of the case instant case file is allowed and respondents are directed to de-seal the shop in question. Appeal is disposed of and be made part of the main file. Copy of the order be sent to respondents for compliance.