Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 2. By an endorsement, made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the fourth respondent has been given up. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that, no notice had been given to it, by the third respondent, before the impugned order, dated 21.08.2014, had been passed, directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the said order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the third respondent, dated 21.08.2014, is bad in law. 4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 had submitted that the impugned order, dated 21.08.2014, had been passed by the third respondent, pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, dated 04.07.2014, in W.P.(MD)No.6675 of 2014, wherein it had been clearly found that the petitioner is an encroacher upon the land belonging to the Government. 5. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned, we find it appropriate to direct the petitioner to treat the impugned order passed by the third respondent, dated 21.08.2014, as a notice. It is also made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to submit a reply to the order passed by the third respondent, dated 21.08.2014, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the reply to be submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of four weeks thereafter. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.