RAVATHAYAMMAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORS OFFICE ERODE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these writ petitions, parties are same; facts are also similar. The latter writ petition had to be filed since the relief sought for in the earlier writ petition became inappropriate.

(2.) IN W.P. No. 7478 of 1998 the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing respondents 1 to 4 from issuing licence tp the fifth respondent to run an IMFL retail shop at the premises bearing Nos. 82, 83, 83-A and 83-B, E. M. Muthukumaraswamy Road, Erode opposite to Railway Station.

(3.) WHEN the matter came for admission, I directed both these writ petitions to be posted in the motion list. I further directed that since I have already issued an order of injunction in the earlier writ petition and in spite of the same, the authorities have issued licence the same cannot be recognised by this Court, Respondents 1 to 3 were directed to remove all stocks in the building and report this matter to the Court, after closing the shop. I also directed compliance by the respondents within 24 hours. Pursuant to my subsequent direction the shop has been closed. Thereafter, the fifth respondent has filed an application to vacate the interim order and also filed a counter affidavit in the main writ petition.