Judgment 1. The petitioners have preferred the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for passing of an order by this Court to call for the impugned order-cum-directions of the fourth respondent in reference No.C4-2731-2014, dated 19.10.2014 and quash the same. 2. According to the petitioners, the impugned order of the fourth respondent is against the directions of this Court, dated 17.10.2014 in W.P.(MD) No.16790 of 2014. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners alleges before this Court that the fourth respondent is not suppossed to act in such a manner to deprive the basic right of the petitioners by abrupt refusal to receive the explanation and his act of having passed the ready made order and served it in person to the petitioners on 19.10.2014 (Sunday), at 2.45 p.m. shows that he has preconceived notions and predetermined bias and partial stand. Yet another plea taken on behalf of the petitioners is that this Court has given a joint direction to all the first four respondents to receive the explanations and to give necessary opportunities to the concerned parties. However, the fourth respondent in violation to the Court directions has issued the impugned directions in a feverish, hurry and utter disregard to the specific guidelines and directions given by this Court. 4. It is to be borne in mind that this Court in W.P.(MD)No.16790 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014, on 17.10.2014, while passing the order in paragraphs 11 to 13 has observed as hereunder: "11. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and on an over all assessment of the entire conspectus and attendant facts and circumstances of the present case in an encircling fashion, this Court directs the official Respondents 1 to 4 to look into the representation made by the Petitioner dated 12.10.2014, the show cause notice dated 14.10.2014 issued to Respondents 6 to 9 and the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the explanations to be submitted by the respondents 6 to 9, within the time prescribed in the show cause notice in a fair, just, objective and dispassionate manner on merits and to pass a reasoned speaking order (after providing necessary opportunities to the concerned parties) and the Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to take the act of issuance of show cause notice dated 14.10.2014 to its logical end. In any event, the official Respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders in a qualitative and quantitative manner. 12. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 13. Before parting from the case, this court also directs the Petitioner to cite order of this Court passed in W.P.(MD)No.15914 of 2014 dated 24.09.2014 for perusal and for appropriate consideration at the time of passing of final order to the show cause notice dated 14.10.2014 issued by the fourth Respondent/Commissioner, Sivagangai Municipality." 5. Also this Court has perused the contents of final notice, dated 19.10.2014, issued by the fourth respondent. A mere running of the eye over the contents of the final notice, dated 19.10.2014, issued by the fourth respondent, latently and patently indicates that "even after three days had expired, the explanation had not been received from the concerned owners of marriage hall/marriage mandaps". Further, in the impugned order, dated 19.10.2014, it was made a mention of that as per the order of this Court, dated 17.10.2014, in W.P.(MD)No.16790 of 2014 and also on receipt of the impugned order/notice, dated 19.10.2014, the owners of the marriage hall/marriage mandaps are to stop the textile business. In default, it was informed that their business would be cancelled and also legal action would be taken, etc. 6. On a careful consideration of the aforesaid impugned notice, dated 19.10.2014, issued by the fourth respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the fourth respondent had only issued a final notice and it is for the petitioners to cause/give a suitable reply to the impugned order, dated 19.10.2014, passed by the fourth respondent and thereafter, on receipt of the reply from the petitioners, it is for the fourth respondent and other official respondents to proceed further in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, so that the proceedings initiated by the respondents/authorities concerned come to a logical end. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop and in view of the observations made by this Court, this Court comes to a resultant conclusion that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are premature and otiose one. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop and in view of the observations made by this Court, this Court comes to a resultant conclusion that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are premature and otiose one. In any event, this Court directs the petitioners to give a reply to the final notice, dated 19.10.2014, issued by the fourth respondent and it is upto the fourth respondent/other official respondents to proceed further, in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.