(1.) Heard Mr.Shangar Murali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.
(2.) In the light of the glaring error, which is apparent on the face of the impugned order, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition, without giving notice to the third respondent.
(3.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the notice issued by the second respondent dated 06.02.2018, calling upon the petitioner to show cause within a period of 30 days as to why action should not be taken against the construction put up by him in violation of the approved plan. The impugned proceedings was triggered on account of a writ petition filed by the third respondent in W.P.(MD)No.332 of 2018, wherein, he prayed for a direction to forbear the seventh respondent therein, who is the petitioner herein, from constructing new apartment complex and to cancel the approval granted to the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of without notice to the petitioner/7th respondent, by order dated 09.02.2018. However, the Division Bench protected the interest of the petitioner herein and was not inclined to issue any positive direction. At this stage, it would beneficial to refer to the operative portion of the order dated 09.01.2018, which reads as follows: