ORDER : 1. Application for leave of the Court stands allowed. 2. Instant special appeal is directed against order of the Ld. Single Judge impugned dt.6-7-2017 and it has been prayed that they may be impleaded as party respondents which the Ld. Single has declined under its order impugned dt.3-4-2017. 3. Application has been filed seeking leave of the Court assailing the orders passed behind their back and they are the one whose rights as alleged are going to be affected by the orders passed by the Ld. Single Judge in the pending writ petition. 4. A writ petition came to be filed by one Mukesh Kataria claiming himself to be local resident of Kamla Nehru Nagar, Hasanpura “C”, Jaipur and his complaint was that there are certain alleged encroachments/unauthorized constructions on the place earmarked as a public park situated in Kamla Nehru Nagar, Hasanpura “C”, Jaipur and despite notices being served to the authorities of JMC no action has been taken which compelled him to approach this Court by filing of the writ petition. 5. At the outset it may be noticed that either illegal encroachment or unauthorized construction if raised it certainly cannot be approved and action is required to be taken against the encroacher or unauthorized construction if raised over the subject land in question as being prayed for but action has to be taken as prescribed by law. 6. In the instant writ petition on complaint being made cognizance was taken by this Court and notices were issued to the respondents to come with explanation & also the factual report in reference to public park situated in Kamla Nehru Nagar, Hasanpura “C”, Jaipur. Jaipur Municipal Corporation filed its reply & prayed that there are certain alleged encroachments over the public park and action needs to be taken against the individuals. 7. At this stage when action being taken by JMC by serving notice obviously after cognizance was taken by this Court in the instant writ petition no. Jaipur Municipal Corporation filed its reply & prayed that there are certain alleged encroachments over the public park and action needs to be taken against the individuals. 7. At this stage when action being taken by JMC by serving notice obviously after cognizance was taken by this Court in the instant writ petition no. 1532/2014, the persons affected jointly filed application for their impleadment as party respondents in the pending writ petition and it was prayed that they are not the encroachers and as alleged patta has been issued to them and once notice has been served because of the directions of this Court by the authority and they are residing for last 20 years & further order passed by this Court in the pending writ petition and what is being prayed for in the instant writ petition if accepted by this Court the applicants are the one whose rights are going to be jeopardized and notices have not been issued by the JMC on its own but because of intervention of this Court in the writ petition preferred by Mukesh Kataria making complaint of the alleged encroachment on the public park situated in Kamla Nehru Nagar, Hasanpura “C”, Jaipur, at this stage application was jointly filed by the applicants for their impleadment as party respondents in the pending writ petition and that came to be rejected by the Ld. Single Judge vide its order dt.3-4-2017 holding that very innocuous prayer has been made in the writ petition for removal of encroachment from the public park situated in Kamla Nehru Nagar, Hasanpura “C”, Jaipur and action has to be taken obviously by due process of law and such complaint being made jointly by the applicants for their impleadment as party respondents needs no further indulgence and they can certainly avail remedy available to them against the notice served upon the individual applicants. 8. The record reveals that after rejection of their application vide order dt.3-4-2017 further order has been passed by the Ld. 8. The record reveals that after rejection of their application vide order dt.3-4-2017 further order has been passed by the Ld. Single Judge on 6-7-2017 directing JMC for removal of encroachments from the public park, as already observed, certainly if there is encroachment it has to be removed but before any action being taken it has to be examined by a statutory authority as to whether there is any alleged encroachment/unauthorized construction in reference to which complaint has been made and that is possible if an independent enquiry is conducted after affording opportunity of hearing to the affected parties including the applicants. 9. Counsel for appellant submits that in the given facts & circumstances the notice which has been served upon them, although refers to submit their reply to the notice but in the light of the subsequent order passed by the Ld. Single Judge dt.6-7-2017 affording opportunity of hearing is an empty formality and JMC has no other option but to pass further orders in compliance thereof and such post decisional hearing and that too in the light of the order of the Ld. Single Judge is not going to serve any purpose and this is nothing but a denial of principles of natural justice which is a cardinal principles of administrative law that no one should be condemned unheard and has a right to be afforded a fair opportunity of hearing. 10. Counsel for respondents seriously opposed and submits that their only prayer made is in reference to removal of encroachment/unauthorized construction over the subject land in question and once opportunity was afforded by serving notice there appears no reason for their impleadment as party respondents to the pending writ petition and every individual upon whom notice has been served certainly can avail/adopt remedy/measure available to him under the law and no error has been committed by the Ld. Single Judge in rejecting their application seeking permission for their impleadment under its order impugned dt.3-4-2017 and the further order passed on 6-7-2017 is nothing but direction to the JMC to discharge its legal obligation in terms of provisions of the Act, 2009. 11. Single Judge in rejecting their application seeking permission for their impleadment under its order impugned dt.3-4-2017 and the further order passed on 6-7-2017 is nothing but direction to the JMC to discharge its legal obligation in terms of provisions of the Act, 2009. 11. After we have heard counsel for the parties we find substance in the submission made for the reason that after the notices have been served upon the applicants under the directions of this Court and is still seized of the matter, the applicants are the one whose rights are certainly going to be jeopardized if any further order is passed by the Court and the cardinal principles of administrative law that no-one should be condemned unheard is the basic principle which ordinarily has to be complied with unless prohibited by law. 12. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed and order of the Ld. Single Judge impugned dt.3-4-2017 stands set aside and the applicants are impleaded as party respondents in the pending writ petition no. 1532/2014 and are at liberty to file misc. application seeking further orders/clarification/modification in reference to the subsequent order passed by the Ld. Single Judge dt.6-7-2017. No cost.