ORDER : 1. The petitioner-Institution is before this Court seeking following reliefs : (i) issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.06.2022 in No.ASAM/SHAMA/CR-133/16-17/160/189 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Minority Welfare Department, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District, copy of which is produced at Annexure-A. (ii) issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, Bantwal Sub Division, Bantwal, Dakshina to consider the representation dated 28.02.2022 copy of which is produced at Annexure-H. (iii) issuance any other writs or direction to meet the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner-Institution had been sanctioned a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the Minority Welfare Department for the purpose of construction of a Community Hall. Part of the sanctioned amount was released. Apparently, after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Panchayath, the petitioner had commenced construction of the Community Hall. However, upon a complaint filed by one K.Abdul Razak of alleged forging of the records, a Criminal Case came to be registered on 25.05.2019 against the members of the petitioner-Institution. 3. When things stood thus, a notice dated 23.01.2019 came to be issued by Respondent No.2 calling the petitioner to submit the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) showing the valuation of the work already done. The petitioner had, in turn, by letter dated 31.01.2019, requested the AEE of the Panchayath Raj Engineer, Bantwal Sub Division to issue a Valuation Report regarding the completion of the work done. There was no response to the said request made by the petitioner. That, on 21.01.2022, Respondent No.2 had issued a notice to the Petitioner-Institution contending that, though a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was released, the petitioner had stopped the construction and directed the petitioner to complete the construction immediately and submit the report of the Authorised Engineer, with the photographs to be submitted to the Respondent No.2, failing which, necessary proceedings to recover the amount would be initiated. 4. In response, the petitioner had informed that, due to lack of funds, construction work had stopped and thereafter, request made by the petitioner to the AEE to furnish the status report was also not considered. Under the circumstances, the petitioner, by representation dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure-G), had requested the Deputy Commissioner to make the spot inspection, verify and evaluate the construction done and to release further amount, which was further followed by another representation dated 25.04.2022 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner, by representation dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure-G), had requested the Deputy Commissioner to make the spot inspection, verify and evaluate the construction done and to release further amount, which was further followed by another representation dated 25.04.2022 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner. But, without considering the requests made by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner as well as to the AEE to conduct the spot inspection, a Notice dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure-J) came to be issued by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner directing the petitioner to submit the explanation along with the affidavit of the AEE, failing which, was threatened to initiate action to recover the amount already released. 5. The petitioner issued reply to the Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner stating that, a sum exceeding Rs.50,00,000/- was already spent for construction and also bringing to his notice that, the AEE has refused to issue Valuation Report on the ground of police complaint being filed and pending enquiry, thus expressing his helplessness to comply with the requirement of submitting the Valuation Report. The allegation of forging the document was also denied. Under these circumstances, the petitioner proceeded to construct the building out of his own funds. The said K.Abdul Razak had filed complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, who without any enquiry or whatsoever, issued notice dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure- A) calling upon the petitioner to stop the construction work forthwith with a threat of initiating action against the petitioner if, construction is proceeded further, which has given rise to the present petition. 6. This Court by an interim order dated 12.10.2022 had directed the respondent not to precipitate the matter and further, by order dated 28.10.2022, had directed the petitioner to delete respondent No.4 - K.Abdul Razak as no notice was sent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the averments as noted above, submits that, the only basis on which the notice impugned in this petition (produced at Annexure-A) came to be issued is the alleged fabrication of the records and pendency of Criminal Complaint filed by one K.Abdul Razak. The learned counsel refers to the document at Annexure-C produced at Pg.Nos.18 and 19 of the writ petition to point out that, the said document is an internal correspondence ensued between the AEE and the Minority Welfare Officer along with the Valuation Report submitted by the AEE. The learned counsel refers to the document at Annexure-C produced at Pg.Nos.18 and 19 of the writ petition to point out that, the said document is an internal correspondence ensued between the AEE and the Minority Welfare Officer along with the Valuation Report submitted by the AEE. The petitioner had no role to play or act in any manner whatsoever in issuance of the said document at Annexure-C and the Report. Therefore, he submits that, the allegation that the said document at Annexure-C has been forged and fabricated by the petitioner is untenable. He submits that, the complaint which was registered at the instance of K.Abdul Razak has also ended in the jurisdictional police filing 'B' report. Therefore, he submits that there is no justification whatsoever to sustain the notice at Annexure-A. He further submits that, though the document at Annexure-A is titled as Notice, it has the effect of an Order, which is passed without any enquiry. Therefore, he seeks for allowing the petition. 8. Learned AGA, in response, submits that though Annexure-A is based on the allegation of forged document, further enquiry conducted by the Respondent Authority would reveal that the petitioner-Institution has encroached upon certain properties to put up construction and the enquiry in this regard has been conducted and a report dated 23.01.2022 has been filed and in terms of which, it is proposed to have the encroached area removed. Therefore, she submits that apart from the allegation of forgery and fabrication of documents, there is also an issue of 'encroachment of the property'. Besides, the construction being done without any sanctioned plan. Hence, she submits that there is no error or illegality committed by Respondent No.2 in issuing Annexure-A and seeks for dismissal of the petition. 9. Heard perused the records. 10. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner-Institution has been granted with financial aid to an extent of Rs.50,00,000/- for the purpose of construction of a Community Hall. The only reasons, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, forthcoming from the notice at Annexure-A is, alleged fabrication of Valuation Report produced at Annexure-C and pendency of enquiry by the Police upon the complaint filed by one K.Abdul Razak. 11. The only reasons, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, forthcoming from the notice at Annexure-A is, alleged fabrication of Valuation Report produced at Annexure-C and pendency of enquiry by the Police upon the complaint filed by one K.Abdul Razak. 11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Annexure-C is an Inter Office Communication ensued between AEE of Dakshina Kannada Zilla Panchayath Sub Division and the Minority Welfare Officer Azad Bhavan, Mangalore, along with the Valuation Report prepared and submitted by the AEE. A bare perusal of the said document would indicate that, the said document is neither issued by nor addressed to the petitioner. There is considerable force in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner has no role of any nature in the said document at Annexure-C coming into existence. 12. The other reason given in the Notice at Annexure-A is, pendency of Criminal Case, which, now according to the counsel for the petitioner, has ended in the concerned police filing a 'B' report. 13. Since the only two reasons which were assigned in the notice at Annexure-A have no justification, this Court is of the considered view that the notice at Annexure-A, is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed. 14. The representations made by the petitioner as per Annexures-H & K to the AEE as well as to the Deputy Commissioner requesting them to inspect the status of construction and to pass appropriate orders has not been considered. 15. Though, as contended by the learned AGA that, there appears to be certain enquiry conducted and a report submitted, admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to the said enquiry and the consequent report. 16. In the circumstances, the respondents-AEE as well as the Deputy Commissioner shall consider the representations submitted as per Annexures- H and K and after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, including personal visit to the spot, pass appropriate orders within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Petition is disposed of accordingly.