JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the notice of the respondent No.2 to 4 in connection with the notice for closure of the Bricklin Chamber Unit at SF.No.190, 193/2, Maangarai, No.11, Veerapaandi, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore, of the petitioner dated 19.03.2021, and quash the same.) 1. The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorari, to call for the notice dated 19.03.2021, issued by the respondents 2 to 4, in connection with the closure of the petitioner's Bricklin Chamber at SF.No.190, 193/2, Maangarai, No.11, Veerapaandi, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore, and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner is the bricklin owner. He has challenged the impugned order, which is in the form of a general notice dated 19.03.2021, which reads thus : TAMIL 3. Putting challenge against the said circular issued, to close the bricklin run by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the very same impugned closure order, has been the subject matter in the number of writ petitions in W.P.No.9606 of 2021 & batch cases etc., which were heard by the learned Judge of this Court, and a common order came to be passed in all those writ petitions on 30.04.2021 (K.Sundaraj Vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore and Others). The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the operative portion of the said order, which reads as under : 22. For the foregoing reasons, without delving much upon the merits and demerits of the other submissions of the learned counsel on either side, excepting incorporating the same hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders need interference by this Court. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the District Collector, Coimbatore, who is the competent authority under the statute, shall pass appropriate orders with respect to all these petitioners after affording an opportunity of hearing within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned orders would be treated as notices to the petitioners for appearing before the District Collector. No separate notice in this regard will be issued to the petitioners. The petitioners are at liberty to submit all relevant documents in support of their claim. The impugned orders would be treated as notices to the petitioners for appearing before the District Collector. No separate notice in this regard will be issued to the petitioners. The petitioners are at liberty to submit all relevant documents in support of their claim. It is made clear that no further extension of time would be granted to the District Collector to complete the above exercise of passing the appropriate orders qua these petitioners. The District Collector, Coimbatore, shall proceed with the further process based on the web copy of this order, without waiting for the certified copy. 23. It is open to the respondents to take any action against the brick kilns, including the petitioners, if it is found that the same has been operated without any license/clearance in the manner known to law. This order would not preclude the authorities in exercising their powers in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the owners of the brick kilns can run the show, if they possess a valid licence and other documents to do so. 24. These writ petitions are ordered to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP Nos.11653 and 11786 of 2021 are dismissed and the other connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. 4. By relying upon the aforesaid order passed by the learned Judge, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the very same announcement, which is impugned herein is issued to this petitioner also. It is his contention that the petitioner's bricklin has been closed without giving any notice or an opportunity of the petitioner being heard, and therefore, on that ground, the said notification has to be quashed. He added that the petitioner has treated the said circular, only as a notice informing him that there would be a stay in running the bricklin. He further added that the petitioner is ready and willing to reply to the same, and that an opportunity of hearing would be granted to him, followed which, a decision shall be taken in accordance with law by fixing a time frame, which may be stipulated by this Court. 5. Heard the learned Government Advocate, who submitted that, admittedly the petitioner has been running the bricklin without any licence or permission, and this kind of bricklin run by various people throughout the State without licence, have been closed. 5. Heard the learned Government Advocate, who submitted that, admittedly the petitioner has been running the bricklin without any licence or permission, and this kind of bricklin run by various people throughout the State without licence, have been closed. He brought to the notice of the Court the order passed by the First Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27356 and 28475 of 2019 on 10.02.2021, wherein, a general direction has been given in this regard that the bricklin owners who are encroaching into the forest lands or elephant corridors should be proceeded against without undue delay. In fact, the said order has been implemented by the respondents. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and also perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. Though it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been running the bricklin without any permission or licence, and it is to be closed because of the unlawful running of the bricklin, such closure order, impugned herein, came to be issued without placing any notice to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the reasons as to why the bricklin run by the petitioner shall not be closed, and only on that ground on which the learned Judge has passed the order in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.9606 of 2021, as referred to above and the import of the said order has been quoted in the above paragraphs, this Court is in agreement with the order passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.9606 of 2021, dated 30.04.2021, and hence, I am inclined to pass the following order in the present writ petition : (a) the impugned order shall be treated as a notice to the petitioner and pursuant to which, it is open to the petitioner to give his explanation to the respondents as to why the bricklin run by the petitioner shall not be closed, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (b) Upon receipt of the reply from the petitioner, the respondents shall pass a speaking order on merit and in accordance with law, within the next 15 days, i.e., totally within a period of one month, the aforesaid exercise shall be completed by both sides. (b) Upon receipt of the reply from the petitioner, the respondents shall pass a speaking order on merit and in accordance with law, within the next 15 days, i.e., totally within a period of one month, the aforesaid exercise shall be completed by both sides. (c) The bricklin run by the petitioner shall continue to run would be decided only depending upon the orders passed by the respondents, and till such time, the petitioner is directed not to run the bricklin unit. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.