ORDER : K.R.Shriram, C.J. Since common issues are involved and common grounds are raised, we dispose of these batch of five petitions by way of this common order. The directions given herein shall apply to all petitions. For convenience, we are taking the facts in W.P.(MD) No.13308 of 2018. 2. Petitioner is unhappy with the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the second respondent – Tahsildar. In our view, this is a fit case to direct the District Collector to initiate an enquiry against Respondent No.2, which we hereby do, and take disciplinary action, if required. 3. Petitioner had received a show cause notice dated 20 th November, 2017 under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act,1905. By the said notice, the Revenue Inspector had called upon petitioner to vacate himself from Survey No.920/25 within seven days. Petitioner challenged the notice by way of a writ petition, being W.P. (MD) No.22019 of 2017. The said petition came to be disposed vide an order, dated 30 th November,2017, by which petitioner was given time to respond to the show cause notice within ten days and, on receipt of response, Respondent No.2, i.e., the Tahsildar, was to dispose of the matter on merits, by passing a reasoned speaking order within four weeks thereafter. Petitioner was also to be given a personal hearing. 4. Sri Gomathi Sankar, counsel for petitioner, states petitioner filed a representation dated 26 th December,2017. Sri Gomathi Sankar further states Respondent No.2, instead of considering the representation or giving a personal hearing as directed by this Court, had proceeded to issue the impugned order dated 08.06.2018, calling upon petitioner to vacate within fifteen days. Sri Gomathi Sankar rightly states that the impugned order reflects total non-application of mind and could be safely stated as an order being issued without application of mind. 5. Sri P.Thilak Kumar, Government Pleader, states that the submission made by Sri Gomathi Sankar is not correct inasmuch as notice for personal hearing was given on 29.12.2017, calling upon petitioner to attend a personal hearing on 05 th June, 2018, at 04.00 p.m., and petitioner had not attended the personal hearing. 6. Sri Gomathi Sankar agrees that petitioner did not go for the personal hearing, but, at the same time, the impugned order is a cyclostyled order, without dealing with the submissions of petitioner made in the written representation. 6. Sri Gomathi Sankar agrees that petitioner did not go for the personal hearing, but, at the same time, the impugned order is a cyclostyled order, without dealing with the submissions of petitioner made in the written representation. Sri Gomathi Sankar states, if petitioner had not attended the personal hearing, Respondent No.2 should have considered the representation, particularly in view of the fact that this Court, in its earlier order, dated 30 th November, 2017, had directed passing of a reasoned speaking order within four weeks. 7. In the circumstances, we hereby quash the impugned order, dated 08.06.2018, and direct Respondent No.2 to give a personal hearing to petitioner on 15.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m., and pass a reasoned order on or before 30 th April, 2025. 8. We clarify that we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter. 9. Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.