Judgment : 1. These writ petitions are directed against the notices issued by the local planning authority calling upon the petitioners to produce the approved plan within a period of 15 days failing which, it was indicated that appropriate action would be taken for locking and sealing the premises under Section 56 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. W.P.Nos.18652 and 18653 of 2013:- 2. The petitioners obtained planning permission from Mannur Panchayat and constructed a building in S.No.429/4 and 429/6 of Mannur Village. The building was given on lease, after assessment by the local body. While so, the local planning authority issued notices dated 4 July 2013 to the tenants informing them of the proposed enforcement action on account of putting up building without planning permission. According to the petitioner, the building was constructed with approval and as such, the enforcement action was unwarranted. W.P.No.19327/2013:- 3. The petitioner is stated to be a developer. The petitioner obtained planning permission from Mannur Panchayat vide proceedings dated 28 April 2010 to construct a ware house in its property situated at Mannur Village. The building was assessed to property tax by the local body. The building was given on rent to DHL Lemuir Logistics Ltd. 4. While the matter stood thus, the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning issued the impugned notice alleging that the building was constructed without permission. According to the petitioner, the building was constructed before the introduction of Act 46 of 2010. Since the construction was made before the insertion of Section 47A of the Act, there is no need to obtain planning permission from the Town Planning Department. The local body was competent to grant planning permit during the material time. The enforcement action therefore, is legally not maintainable. The response:- 5. The planning authority in its counter affidavit contended that the Panchayat has no authority to grant planning permit. The builder, in case of construction of this nature should allot 10% of the area, by a gift deed, to the local panchayat. Similarly, payment has to be made towards developmental charges. According to the Town and Country Planning Department, permission from appropriate authority was not obtained by the petitioners and as such, enforcement action was rightly taken. Submissions in brief:- 6. Similarly, payment has to be made towards developmental charges. According to the Town and Country Planning Department, permission from appropriate authority was not obtained by the petitioners and as such, enforcement action was rightly taken. Submissions in brief:- 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the buildings were constructed in accordance with the permit issued by the local panchayat. The amendment to the Town Planning Act was made subsequently. The Town Planning Department was not correct in directing the petitioners to obtain planning permission once again. 7. The learned counsel for the Town Planning Department justified the action taken by the Planning Authority. Analysis :- 8. The petitioners are aggrieved by the notices issued by the Town and Country Planning Department proposing to take enforcement action under Section 56 and 57 of the Act. 9. The petitioners have taken up a contention that they have obtained planning permission from the village panchayat and as such, there is no need to obtain further permission from the planning authority. 10. The impugned notices would show that the officials of the Town and Country Planning Department inspected the buildings in question. The approved plans or permits were not exhibited to show the legality of the construction undertaken by the petitioners. The planning authority wanted the petitioners to produce the sanctioned plan by the competent authority. The petitioners without giving a reply to the notices, rushed to this Court. 11. The authority of the Town and Country Planning Department to take action against illegal construction is not under challenge. The only contention is that the petitioners have obtained planning permission from the statutory authority and as such, it was a construction permitted by law. Nothing prevented the petitioners from giving a reply to the notices, explaining the factual and legal position. The writ petition challenging such notice is clearly not maintainable. The Town Planning Department have not finally decided the matter. The petitioners should approach the statutory authority at the first instance. 12. The impugned notices are directed to be treated as show cause notices. The petitioners are given two weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to submit individual explanation to the show cause notices dated 4 July 2013. The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning Department, is directed to consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders on merits and as per law. The petitioners are given two weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to submit individual explanation to the show cause notices dated 4 July 2013. The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning Department, is directed to consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders on merits and as per law. Status quo as on today shall be preserved till the disposal of the matter by the Town and Country Planning Act. 13. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.