ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 29.2.2016, whereby the petitioner is required to remove his demarcated construction within a period of 3 days for the purpose of widening of the road. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Jain v. Indore Municipal Corporation in Writ Petition No.1577/2016 by order dated 29.2.2016 [ 2016(I) MPWN 127 ], the respondents have now issued the subsequent notice dated 2.3.2016 extending the period of show cause by one week. He further submits that the directions issued in the matter of Ashok Kumar Jain (supra), will be duly complied with. 3. This Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Jain (supra), has passed the following order :- “Shri Vinay Saraf learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1577/2016 and Shri M. Dalal learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petitions No.1594/2016, 1581/2016 and 1579/2016. Shri Rishi Tiwari learned counsel for respondents. This order will govern disposal of Writ Petitions No.1577/2016, 1594/2016, 1581/2016 and 1579/2016 since it is jointly stated by counsel for the parties that all these writ petitions involve common issue in identical facts situation. For convenience the facts have been noted from Writ Petition No. 1577/2016. The case of petitioner is that he is owner of the house situated in Biyabani Main Road, Indore and the house is existing since 1940 but the respondents are seeking to demolish the house on the ground that in the Master Plan the width of Biyabani Road is proposed to be 24 meter and the house of petitioner comes in the way of the road widening. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that road widening is not permissible under Central area of the city where the petitioner's house situates. He further submits that building line is required to be drawn following the procedure under section 291 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act and the respondents are required to act in accordance with Master Plan since no other scheme or plan is permissible under section 292 of the Act. He further submits that building line is required to be drawn following the procedure under section 291 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act and the respondents are required to act in accordance with Master Plan since no other scheme or plan is permissible under section 292 of the Act. Learned counsel for respondents on caveat has submitted that petitioners are no cause of action to approach this Court since no notice has been issued to the petitioners and the respondents will not demolish any portion of the petitioner's construction without issuing any notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing. In the aforesaid circumstances since the counsel for respondents has made a categorical statement before this Court therefore, no case for issuing any direction at this stage is made out. The writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents that before taking any action in respect of petitioner's construction the respondents will serve a notice indicating the nature and extent of construction to be demolished and will give seven day's time to file the response to the said notice and will pass an appropriate reasoned order after considering the reply and will take any further action only after giving a week's breathing time to the petitioners after passing of order in pursuance to the notice. The breathing time has been granted to the petitioners keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case. The signed order be placed in the record of Writ Petition No.1577/2016 and copy whereof be placed in the record of connected writ petitions ?� 4. Considering the stand of counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms by holding that the directions issued in the matter of Ashok Kumar Jain (supra), will apply mutatis mutandis in the case of the present petitioner also.