The main legal point established is the requirement of a show-cause notice before ordering demolition and the authority's power to enforce immediate stoppage of work in cases of unauthorized construction.

( 1 ) THESE twoappeals are directed against a common order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ petition Nos. 25547 and 30905 of 1992. The facts of the case are within a very narrow compassinsofar as it is the case of the present appellants who are the Cantonment board, Belgium that the Respondents i; 2 and 3 who are the owners of a property situated at D. C. 178, Havelock Road, Belgaum had applied to the Board for carrying out of some repairs to the roof of the structure and that they were informed that no formal permission is required for such work but, it was also clarified to them that the. height of the roof was not to be raised under the guise of repairs and furthermore, that no additions or alterations are to be undertaken. The applicants were put on notice of the fact that if unauthorised construction work is carried out, that they will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Cantonments Act, l924. According to the Board, the owners resorted to the usual ploy of not only carrying out the major alterations to the structure but, that they virtually reconstructed it. When this activity came to the notice of the Board, a notice under Section 185 of the Act was served on the owners calling upon them to stop the illegal construction and secondly to demolish the unauthorised structure. What transpired was something that invariably took place insofar as the Board kept issuing notice after notice repeatedly calling upon the owners to stop the construction and to demolish the unauthorised structure and the owners kept ignoring it. In sum and substance, the structure was completed but, as far as the notices were concerned as against the first set of notices, the owners resorted to the appellate remedy and on their appeals being dismissed, they approached the High Court through a writ petition. A slight difference as far as the second writ petition is concerned is that it covers the last set of notices wherein the appellate remedy has not been resorted to and consequently, the contention of the Board as far as the second writ petition is concerned was to the effect that the petition itself is not maintainable insofar as the petitioners had not exhausted the alternate statutory remedy available to them. Also, it was pointed out that the line of action followed by the owners was such that they defiantly continued with the construction until it was completed and at a late stage, they had started availing of the legal remedies and as far as the second Writ petition No. 30905/1992 was concerned, that it was liable to be dismissed on, the ground of delay and laches. The learned single Judge heard the parties and since the subject-matter of the dispute or the cause of action was virtually overlapping in the two petitions, the learned single Judge has decided the point of law through the common order without really entering into the grounds of objection vis-a-vis the second petition which in our considered view ought to have been dismissed on the basis of the objections that were raised by the Respondent-Board.

( 2 ) IT is necessary for us to summarise the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners who are really the contesting respondents before us in these appeals. The main plank of challenge on which they had approached the High Court proceeds on the footing that the notices served on them are defective and that the line of action adopted by the Cantonment Board does not conform to the procedure prescribed by law or accepted by law and that consequently, the notices are liable to be quashed. To summarise the grounds of challenge, what is contended by the owners is that the notice served on them is a composite notice calling upon them to stop work and to demolish the unauthorised structure. The principal contention raised was that the order to demolish the structure is in the nature of a final order and even assuming such a course of action was ultimately found to be justified, that it is wel