ORDER : R.SURESH KUMAR, J. PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records related to the impugned notice / order passed by the third respondent in Ma2/0003167/2024 dated 31.05.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of petitioner's shop comprised in S.No.65/1, Vilangudi Bit-II, Madurai North, Madurai District, having a total extent of 30x20 feet. The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records related to the impugned notice / order passed by the third respondent in Ma2/0003167/2024 dated 31.05.2024 and to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of petitioner's shop comprised in S.No.65/1, Vilangudi Bit-II, Madurai North, Madurai District, having a total extent of 30x20 feet. 2.In the instant writ petition, the petitioner challenges the proceedings issued by the respondent Corporation on 31.05.2024, whereby they invoked Section 128 of the Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment which has been admittedly made by him in the road margin belonging to the respondent Corporation. 3.Assailing the said order, learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that last year itself such kind of order has been passed as against which the petitioner along with similarly placed persons had approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD)No.19621 of 2023, etc., batch. The Division Bench of this Court by common order dated 14.08.2023 passed the following order: “7.In the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders: (i) The writ petitions are allowed. (ii) the impugned proceedings dated 15.06.2023, issued by the third respondent are quashed, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. (iii) The impugned proceedings / notices dated 15.06.2023, issued by the third respondent, shall be treated as show-cause notices issued under the Section 128 of the Act. (iv) it is open to the petitioners to submit their objections / explanations to the show – cause notice, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) it is open to the petitioners to submit their objections / explanations to the show – cause notice, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) After receiving the objections / explanations from the petitioners as directed above, the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation / second respondent shall pass orders, in accordance with law, after holding an enquiry, within a period of two weeks thereafter. (vi) No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 4.When that being so, once again the present order has been passed which is impugned herein as the petitioner has been in occupancy of the shop concerned for his livelihood and he has been paying the tax also to the Municipality. When that being so, all of a sudden, he cannot be asked to vacate. Hence, learned Counsel seeks indulgence of this Court. 5. Heard Mr.A.Kannan, learned Additional Governance Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.K.K.Kannan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, on instructions, would submit that, this is the third proceedings which had been issued against the petitioner for eviction, as the show cause notice had already been issued atleast twice. On the earlier occasion, this Court had given a direction to treat the notice given to the petitioner as show cause notice and submit his explanation and on receipt of the said reply, the respondents were directed to consider the said explanation and to pass orders on merits. The said reply has been considered and having found that it is admittedly a road margin, his plea of continuance in the said place cannot be considered and accordingly, the present order came to be passed which cannot be questioned, he contended. 7.Learned Standing Counsel would also submit that yesterday, the officials and staff of the respondent Corporation went there for making the eviction and the petitioner has given a written undertaking that within a period of one or two days he would evict the premises as he has to remove the materials available in the shop, which he has set up in the Corporation land. Therefore, relying upon all these documents and the earlier order issued in this regard, learned Standing Counsel seeks indulgence of this Court not to entertain this writ petition and dismiss the same as devoid of merits. Therefore, relying upon all these documents and the earlier order issued in this regard, learned Standing Counsel seeks indulgence of this Court not to entertain this writ petition and dismiss the same as devoid of merits. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9.Admittedly, it is an encroachment and already orders have been passed in the year 2023 which was questioned before this Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Having accepted the said plea raised on behalf of the petitioner, the Division Bench by order dated 14.08.2023 has passed a detailed order which has been extracted hereinabove, where a set of directions have been given to the respondent Corporation as to how to deal with the matter. Accordingly, the reply given by the petitioner having been considered has been rejected and therefore, the present order. 10.Therefore, at this juncture, the petitioner cannot find any plausible reason or ground to successfully challenge the impugned order. In fact, the learned Counsel for the petitioner at one point of time would submit that since he is depending on this shop for his livelihood and suddenly if he is evicted from the place, his livelihood would be severely affected and therefore, if at all the petitioner come forward to make an application before the respondent Corporation for exploring any place for locating his shop, his representation may be directed to be considered and to that extent the petitioner would be satisfied, he contended. 11.With regard to the said submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that insofar as the eviction is concerned, as already undertaken by the petitioner, the petitioner has to evict the land in question and thereafter, it is open to him to make such an application to the Corporation and it is for the Corporation to take a decision on merits. 12.In view of the said stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel and having regard to the aforesaid facts of the case, this Court is inclined to pass the following order: “that the petitioner shall evict the premises / shop within a period of seven [7] days from today [03.07.2024] without fail. 12.In view of the said stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel and having regard to the aforesaid facts of the case, this Court is inclined to pass the following order: “that the petitioner shall evict the premises / shop within a period of seven [7] days from today [03.07.2024] without fail. On the expiry of seven days, if the petitioner does not evict or fully evict the premises, it is open to the Corporation to take any coercive steps to complete the eviction. After fully evicting the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to make a fresh application or representation to the respondent Corporation seeking their indulgence for providing alternative site in any declared area to have such hawking activities as per the provisions of the Street Vendors [Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. If any such request is made by the petitioner after evicting the present premises, the same shall be considered by the respondents under the provisions of the said Act and also on merits within a period of one [1] month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said representation. 13.With the above directions, this Writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.