M. FAROOK Vs. THE COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.

(2.) AT the out set, this Court pertinently points out that to avoid an avoidable delay Notice to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, is dispensed with.

(3.) THE grievance of the Petitioner is that he made a representation to the first Respondent/District Collector, Madurai District, on 14.10.2014, as to why action should not be initiated against the Respondents 3 to 7, as they were using the Marriage Hall for an unsanctioned use. Added further, according to the Petitioner, the 2nd Respondent has not initiated any action under Rule 10(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Public Building (Licensing) act, 1965.