JUDGMENT : F.M. REIS, J. Heard Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives notice. 3. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, without examining the contentions raised, on merits, in the above writ petition, a short point which falls for consideration is, whether the impugned demand by the respondent No.3 by a Notice dated 4th June, 2015 stands vitiated for not giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard prior to such demand. 4. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General points out that the petitioner had to be given a hearing before issuing such a demand notice. 5. In such circumstances, keeping the issues raised on merits open, we find it appropriate to direct the respondent No.3 to examine afresh and pass a fresh order on such demand, after hearing the petitioner, in accordance with law. Until such further orders are passed, the respondents shall not act upon the disputed demand notice at Annexure "A" as it will be subject to such fresh orders that may be passed. In case any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, the implementation of such fresh orders shall be deferred by a period of two weeks, from the date of communication of such order. All the contentions of both the parties, on merits, are left open. 6. Rule stands disposed of in the above terms.