Sarwar Ali, J.

The main or the most important question involved in this writ application is whether the ORDER :passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is a nullity. Can such ORDER :be ignored? Can it be treated to be non-existent in the eye of Law? Before I deal with this, and other questions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is proper to state the facts compactly.

2. The facts which are admitted or which had been established in this case are these :-

The petitioner is the owner and occupier of a house on the flank of a lane vested in the Arrah Municipality. There was an encroachment on this lane by the petitioner who constructed a platform. Respondent no. 4 filed an application for the removal of the encroachment made by the petitioner. Sri H.K. Verma Section Officer of the Municipality was deputed to make an inquiry. He found an encroachment on the public lane. He submitted a report, a true copy of which is Annexure-2 to this writ application. In this report he recommended action under Sect ions 193, 196 and 197 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act ("the Act"). The Municipality issued a notice requiring the petitioner to remove the encroachment within seven days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The notice was issued on the 31st August 1967. The petitioner demolished a portion of the platform constructed by her and filed an application before the Municipality stating that the ORDER :of the Municipality has been complied with. Before the filing of this application, the Municipality wrote to the District Magistrate invoking his jurisdiction under Section 198 of the Act, although the heading of the letter written by the Executive Officer, Arrah Municipality to the District Magistrate, Shahabad, in that regard (Annexure 3) seeks for sanction under Section 198 of the Act. The use of the expression 'sanction' does not appear to be very appropriate. The District Magistrate passed ORDER :on this letter (Annexure 3) in exercise of the powers under Section 198 of the Act. The factum of such an ORDER :having been passed was communicated to the Municipality under Annexure 4 dated the 2nd July, 1968. It may be stated that there is a dispute between the parties whether any ORDER :under Section 198 of the Act was at all passed by the District Magistrate. But I have stated that such an ORDER :was passed by the District Magistrate as in view the materials on the record justify such a conclusion. The relevant discussion on this matter will follow later. It may be stated at this stage that neither the notice to remove the encroachment given by the Municipality to the petitioner nor the ORDER :passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of the powers under Section 198 of the Act were after prior notice to the petitioner. Respondent no. 4 filed two petitions before the District Magistrate requesting him to take steps so that the encroachments made by the petitioner be removed. On receipt of these petitions, the Deputy Collector incharge sought information from the Executive Officer of the Municipality on the question whether the encroachments made by the petitioner had been removed. The Executive Officer replied to the query. The letter of the Executive Officer addressed to the Deputy Collector for Incharge (General Section) is dated the 9th January, 1970, and is Annexure 5 to the writ application. The letter in question does not establish that the encroachment had been removed. What is clear from the letter is that only a part of the encroachment had been removed and the removal of that part solved that problem which the public had to face on account of the encroachment. In fact the report on which reliance has been placed in this case states that the demolition of encroachment has been in part and that since Thelas and rickshaws pass in the lane, there was no necessity of any further removal. On the 25th August, 1970, respondent no. 4 filed another petition before the Executive Officer of the Municipal