The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has settled his dispute with respondents 2 and 3. A fresh agreement has been executed by them in his favour permitting to conduct an inspection of the Factory. In view of the above development, it is submitted that without entering into the merits of the contentions raised in this writ petition, it shall be sufficient that Ext.P7 is directed to be considered by the fourth respondent within a specified time. 2. Adv.K.Ramachandran appears for the first respondent.
According to the counsel, he has no instruction regarding the above facts.
3. However, in view of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, it shall be sufficient that Ext.P7 is directed to be considered.
In view of the above this writ petition is disposed of 2 W.P.(C).No.31194 of 2014 directing the fourth respondent to consider Ext.P7 appeal in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.