Judgment : 1. Heard Mr.A.Rahul, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.M.Raja Rajan, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. According to the Petitioner, the 2nd Respondent had passed the impugned closure order in Na.Ka.No.8233/H1 (Maiyam), dated 09.10.2014, requiring the Petitioner to carry on his present Avocation / Business in alternative place, after obtaining S.Nos. 2 to 5 Documents, mentioned in the Impugned Order / Notice. Also the Petitioner was informed in candid terms by the 2nd Respondent that on receipt of the impugned Order / Notice within 21 days, the Petitioner is to shift his Establishment to a Commercial Complex, failing which, it would be construed that the Petitioner had no reason to submit his explanation and also his building would be given a Certificate that it would be unfit for uses and steps would be taken for closure. 3. The Principal ground on which the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner assails the impugned Order / Notice, dated 09.10.2014 passed by the 2nd Respondent is that the 2nd Respondent had not followed the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5594 of 2013, dated 26.08.2014 in true letter and sprit and as such, the said impugned Order / Notice, dated 09.10.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent is liable to be set aside, in the interest of justice. 4. At this stage, this Court perused the earlier order, dated 26.08.2014, passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5594 of 2013, whereby and where under, in Paragraph 6, it is observed and laid down as under:- "6. In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the first respondent to inspect the building occupied by the fourth respondent and examine as to whether the fourth respondent can be permitted to carry on activities at present, which he is carrying. Thereafter, after issuing notice to the petitioners as well as to the fourth respondent, pass a reasoned orders in accordance with law. Such action shall be taken by the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 5. That apart, this Court has perused the impugned Order / Notice, dated 09.10.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent. The said order does not indicate that the Petitioner was provided with an opportunity to put forth his case / stand. That apart, this Court has perused the impugned Order / Notice, dated 09.10.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent. The said order does not indicate that the Petitioner was provided with an opportunity to put forth his case / stand. Obviously, the 2nd Respondent had not followed the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5594 of 2013, dated 26.08.2014 in true letter and sprit. Suffice it for this Court to point out that in the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD)No.5594 of 2013, a specific direction was given in paragraphs 6 to the effect that Notice should be issued to the Petitioner therein as well as to the 4th Respondent (Now the Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.17485 of 2013) and then only a reasoned order was directed to be passed by the 1st Respondent / Commissioner, Trichy City Municipal Corporation, Trichirappalli and that too, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 6. In view of the fact that the earlier order of this Court dated 26.08.2014 in W.P.(MD)No.5594 of 2013 has not been complied with by the Respondents in the present Writ Petition, in true letter and sprit, this Court is left with no option, but to set aside the Impugned Order / Notice dated 09.10.2014 and accordingly, sets aside the same, to prevent an aberration of justice. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Order, dated 09.10.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent is hereby sets aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in the present Writ Petition. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.