The petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 application for the issue of a licence. According to the counsel for the petitioner, there is absolutely no justification for keeping Ext.P4 application pending without passing any orders thereon. The petitioner is a State Government undertaking.
2. Adv.Sri.P.V.Surendranath appears for the 2nd respondent.
3. In view of the limited relief sought for, I am satisfied that it is sufficient that this writ petition is disposed of directing Ext.P4 to be considered.
This writ petition is therefore disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider Ext.P4 application for licence submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the additional 4th respondent 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. Until orders are passed on Ext.P4 and communicated to the petitioner, no coercive action shall be initiated against the business of the petitioner.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV