ORDER : S. Manikumar, J. Impugned notice issued under Section 258 of the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, reads as hereunder:- “XXX XXX XXX” 2. One of the main grounds of challenge to the impugned notice, is that there is a violation of principles of justice. Added further, the petitioner claims to have purchased the subject property, from one Vincent Paul Francis Pinto, who in turn, had purchased the same by a sale deed, dated 12.12.1929, formed a housing colony, and constructed houses bearing Nos.23A to 32, and formed a common pathway. 3. Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (Act 27 of 1994), has been enacted in 1994. As per Section 2(h) of the said Act, all the words and expressions used in this Act and not defined, but defined in the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 1981 Act), shall have the same meanings, respectively, assigned to them in the 1981 Act, thereby making it clear that all the provisions of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, would apply mutatis mutandis, subject to Section 2(h) of the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. Section 258 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, mutatis mutandis, applicable to Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, reads as follows:- ''258. Removal of encroachments -(1) The Commissioner may by notice require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove or alter any projection, encroachment or obstruction (other than a door, gate, bar or ground-floor window) situated against or in front of such premises and in or over any street or any public place the control of which is vested in the corporation. (2) If the owner or occupier of the premises proves that any such projection, encroachment or obstruction has existed for a period sufficient under the law of limitation to give him a prescriptive title or where such period is less than third years for a period of thirty years or that it was erected with the consent of any municipal authority duty empowered in that behalf, and the period if any, for which the consent is valid has not expired the corporation shall make compensation to every person who suffers damage by the removal or alteration of the same.'' 4. Sub Section 2 of Section 258, enables the owner or occupier of the premises to make his response objections, for the removal of alleged encroachment. Even otherwise, it is well settled principle of law, that before passing an adverse order, the party, who is likely to be affected, should be given an opportunity to put forth his case, more so, in the case of a removal of an alleged encroachment, or obstruction. 5. Reading of the impugned notice shows that the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice. 6. Mr. N. Sudhagar Nagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice was served on the petitioner on 29.01.2016. 15 days time has not expired. 7. In the light of Section 258 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, thus made applicable to Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, liberty is given to the petitioner to submit her response, to the impugned notice, within one week from today, along with supporting documents. On receipt of such response, the Assistant Commissioner, Ariyamangalam Ward, Tiruchirapalli Municipal Corporation, Trichy, the 2nd respondent herein, is directed to consider the response of the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders within a period of two weeks, thereafter. Till such time, no coercive action be taken. 8. Mr. N.S. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the Corporation is directed to communicate the order of this Court to the respondents. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 2588 and 2589 of 2016 are closed.