ORDER : With the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, this case is being decided at this stage itself. 2. The petitioners have challenged the legality of the letter/endorsement dated 20-1-2015 issued by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Bengaluru, whereby the respondent 2 has withdrawn the sanctioned plan dated 18-2-2013, and directed the petitioners to apply for modifying the sanctioned plan. 3. The briefly facts of the case are that the petitioners purchased a residential property bearing Municipal No. 25 (Old No. 19-A), situated at Union Street West Cross of Cubbon Road, lying in the parallel lane of Cubbon Road and Infantry Road, Bengaluru, from M/s. Popular Kuries Limited. The said property is admeasuring 4088 Square Feet. On 12-12-2012, the petitioners entered into a Joint Development Agreement with M/s. Dutta and Kannan Developers Ventures Private Limited for the construction of residential apartment. In January 2013, the Developers applied for sanction plan for construction of residential apartment consisting of stilt plus three floors. On 4-2-2013, the said building plan was placed before the Planning Committee (East). The Committee submitted a report for issuance of the sanctioned plan. On 18-2-2013, the respondent 2 permitted the petitioners to construct the residential apartment consisting of ground floor plus three floors with five units. In August 2013, the petitioners entered into an Agreement to sell with prospective buyers. On 2-10-2013, the petitioners commenced construction of residential apartment as per the sanctioned plan. Between February and October 2014, the petitioners further entered into an Agreement to sell with other proposed purchasers. On 19-8-2014, the respondent 2 issued a notice under Section 321(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, directing the petitioners to construct the residential building strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan dated 18-2-2013, and to remove the deviation, if any. In furtherance of the notice, a joint inspection was carried out at the schedule property, by the respondent 2, in the presence of the petitioners. On 12-9-2014, the respondents submitted a compliance letter along with the photographs clearly showing that the deviation has been demolished, and the building construction was in consonance with the sanctioned plan dated 18-2-2013. However, the petitioners was shocked and dismayed by receiving a letter dated 20-1-2015, whereby the sanctioned plan dated 18-2-2013 has been withdrawn, and the petitioners have been directed to apply for modifying the sanctioned plan. Hence, this petition before this Court. However, the petitioners was shocked and dismayed by receiving a letter dated 20-1-2015, whereby the sanctioned plan dated 18-2-2013 has been withdrawn, and the petitioners have been directed to apply for modifying the sanctioned plan. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. At the outset, Mr. N.K. Ramesh, the learned Counsel for the respondents-B.B.M.P., has frankly conceded that the impugned letter has been issued without issuing a prior notice to the petitioners. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has pleaded that the impugned letter has been issued without any prior notice to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners' rights under principles of natural justice have been violated. 6. Mr. N.K. Ramesh, the learned Counsel for the respondents-B.B.M.P., has frankly conceded, and in view of the rightly so, that no prior notice has been issued. Thus, obviously, the impugned letter is legally unsustainable. 7. Therefore, this Court set aside the letter dated 20-1-2015. The petition is hereby allowed. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A. No. 2 of 2015 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.