JUDGMENT SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. 1. Mr. G. Anantharangan, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. Being aggrieved by the notice dated 25.11.2014 issued by the second respondent under the provisions of Section 220 read with Section 222 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition seeking quashing of the said notice on the ground that the temple in question has been in existence for a long period and there is no encroachment, as stated in the notice. Further, it is urged by the learned counsel before us that the impugned notice was issued without affording an opportunity of hearing. 3. We are of the view that the question with regard to existence of temple on the land cannot be decided in this proceedings. On a reading of the impugned notice, it appears that a road to an extent of 494 sq. ft. has been encroached by the petitioner, while making renovation in the temple in question. 4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, as we are informed that there is no provision to issue show cause notice and afford an opportunity of hearing to the encroacher, we grant two weeks time to the petitioner to file his reply, putting forward his case before the authorities. Thereafter, the authorities are directed to consider the petitioner's reply in accordance with law and on its own merits and take appropriate action, including removal of encroachment, if it is found that there is an encroachment on the public / service lane. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforestated direction. Costs made easy. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.