work. The illegality continued when the second notice was issued for deoccupation by citing the previous order, on the ground that the construction is unauthorised, when the construction is a old one. The petitioner admits her ignorance about existence of any approved plan for the building. However, in the absence of any Show Cause Notice to the petitioner, this Court is unable to expect the petitioner even to respond to the second notice which is impugned in this writ petition. Since the proceedings were initiated at the instigation of a third party, this Court is also convinced that the impugned orders suffers from legal mala fides . After the order in W.P.No.23425 of 2022 is recalled, the respondents ought to have atleast initiated action by issuing fresh Show Cause Notice alleging specific violations, so that the petitioner will be in a position to explain the position in a better way. In the absence of Show Cause Notice, when the proceedings are initiated quite contrary to the spirit of the legislation, this Court is unable to sustain the order. Therefore, the impugned order dated 02.02.2024 is quashed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.
