The grievance of the petitioners is against the grant of building permit in favour of respondent No.5 as per Ext.P1. According to the petitioners, permission was granted to the 5th respondent for constructing an automobile service room without conducting a proper enquiry. It is the further contention of the petitioners that such construction would interfere with the free flow of a natural water way passing through the properties of the 5th and 6th respondents. In such circumstances, feeling aggrieved by the building permit granted to the 5th respondent, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 4th respondent. It is the non-feasance on Ext.P4 that constrained the petitioners to file the captioned writ petition.
2. When this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4. In the light of the said submission I do not think it necessary to delve into facts or contentions any further. In such circumstances, taking note of the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to respondents 5 and 6. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation as to the merits of the contentions.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010