Judgment : 1. The petitioner is an educational Institution and said to have been running several Colleges including the Medical Colleges offering various courses. They are aggrieved by the action of the respondents who has passed an order dated 20.01.2014 followed by the consequential order dated 25.01.2014 (signed on 28.01.2014). 2. By the said order, the petitioner has been directed to close down the bore-wells which were established in a particular place in the land owned by them and directed them to close down the channel through which, they are taking water to the educational campus. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, such order came to be passed and that too, to disconnect the bore-wells within 24 hours. Placing reliance on that, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kulasekhapuram, dated 24.01.2014 has informed the petitioner on the following lines:- “LANGUAGE” 4. From the above instructions, it is seen that the Public Works Department has made it clear that they will not be able to provide water to the petitioner's institution. Thereafter, the third respondent, by his proceedings dated 25.01.2014, (signed on 28.01.2014) has also informed the petitioner thus: “LANGUAGE” In the light of the above, the petitioner has no option. 5. From the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner established the bore-wells in its land and has been taking water to an extent of two kilometers along with the Government channel. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the petitioner obtained permission from the competent authority to take water for private use along with the Government channel. Therefore, prima facie to that extent, the action of the petitioner is not tenable. However, the petitioner being an educational institution and the local body having clearly stated that they cannot provide water for them, it cannot be left without any remedy. It is seen that when the writ petition was entertained an interim order is granted and the same is extended from time to time and the same is still in force. 6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submits that it is only a show cause notice and it is open to the petitioner to submit a reply to the respondent. 7. This Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submits that it is only a show cause notice and it is open to the petitioner to submit a reply to the respondent. 7. This Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. The impugned proceedings does not give an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken but directs them to close the borewell and channel within 24 hours. Therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot be brushed aside as merely a show cause notice. 8. In the light of the above facts, the writ petition is disposed of, by directing the Public Works Department, namely, the third respondent to issue show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to under what circumstances they are taking water to the institution along the public channel and also explain as to whether the bore-wells established have been done after obtaining due permission. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner shall submit their explanation and thereafter, by conducting enquiry, the third respondent shall pass a speaking order on merits. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, status-quo prevailing as on date shall be maintained. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.