Judgment :- V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. This appeal challenges the judgment allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. By that writ petition, the respondent had sought a writ of Mandamus directing the Town Panchayat to grant licence to it to run an Industry i.e. a textile mill. 2. The facts involved in this affair are classic example of how callous, casual and careless the Government machinery can be in this case, particularly the appellant. It so happened, the very appellant had allowed the building plans for the very textile mill way back in November 1996. It was the case of the petitioner before the learned single Judge that it had applied for licence under Section 160 of the T. N. Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 1-7-1998. It then got all the clearances from the District Industries Centre by July, 1999 and more particularly by its order dated 30-7-1999. It is apparent from the letter which has been sent by the District Industries Centre to the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Chennimalai. The last paragraph in this letter is very significant which is as under : I request you to issue the machinery installation approval to the above applicant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this letter and send a copy of the same to this office for our records." 3. This letter must have reached the appellant at least in the month of August, 1999. The appellant did nothing thereafter and sat tight over that letter without batting an eyelid.. He has first convened the meeting for the Town Panchayat in the month of December and this was in the wake of tremendous liability of interest that the petitioner was facing on account of the finance provided to it by the Bank. Even the Town Panchayat slept thereafter and woke up for the first time in January, only to say that the petitioner had breached Section 160 of the Act and had already started the production. We do not see a single document on the record to suggest that any inspection was made or that any mahazar was executed suggesting that the petitioner had started the production on the day when he made an application i.e. on 1-7-1998. We do not see a single document on the record to suggest that any inspection was made or that any mahazar was executed suggesting that the petitioner had started the production on the day when he made an application i.e. on 1-7-1998. Very interestingly the Town Panchayat did not either refuse or grant the application for licence, but very strangely took a view that the so called breach by the petitioner should be reported to the Collector and a legal action should be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner poured three crores into the industries and had been clamouring for full two years for a licence under Section 160 of the Act. On this back-drop, instead of considering the application one way or other or dealing with it in any manner, a legal action was contemplated on the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition. Not one word of demur was uttered by the appellant by filing a counter-affidavit. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant fully argued the matter and the only defence was that the petitioner had breached Section 160 of the Act. That was the only reason why according to the appellant, the licence could not be granted. 5. Learned single Judge on this back-drop has taken note of the tremendous amount of money which has gone into the installation of the industry, the fact that otherwise there were no good reasons to refuse to grant licence and allowed the writ petition by directing the authorities by way of Mandamus. 6. We do not find anything wrong in the judgment of the learned single Judge. The authorities in this case and more particularly the appellant was exemplarily callous in criminally wasting the time. Some consideration should have been shown to the fact that the industry if started, would have provided opportunities for the local youth employment and it would have helped the general development of the region or at least the Town Panchayat. But, nothing of that sort was done and the appellant sat over on the recommendation sent by the District Industry Centre to which we had already made a reference, for a full period of five years. But, nothing of that sort was done and the appellant sat over on the recommendation sent by the District Industry Centre to which we had already made a reference, for a full period of five years. Even at the stage of argument before the learned Single Judge, no other ground was given excepting that the Industry had already started its production breaching Section 160 of the Act. No valid reason was given as to why it was not entitled to licence, though, it had cleared all the other obstacles like no objection from the Pollution Control Board and all the clearance from other Departments. On this back-drop, we do not see any reason why the licence could not have been granted. If the Commissioner, Town Panchayat felt aggrieved by the fact that the Industry had started its production, he may take such action as he is advised in law. But, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment which directs it to grant the Industrial licence. Even before us, the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out a single reason as to why the licence was liable to be refused excepting breach of Section 160 of the Act, for which a separate action could be initiated by the Town Panchayat under the provisions of the Act. 7. We clarify that we do not intend to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge and that judgment shall be complied with. If in spite of that the concerned Town Panchayat deems fit to take action for the breach of Section 160 of the Act, it may proceed according to law. 8. With this observation, we dismiss the appeal, but with costs of Rs. 1000/- against the appellant. Appeal dismissed.