Judgment : This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take action to demolish the illegal construction put up by the 4th respondent in Survey No. 412/16, Veerapanchathiram Grade III Municipality, Erode Taluk, Erode District. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fourth respondent herein has put up a construction contrary to the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, hence, he has submitted representation to the Authorities concerned. Though, the Authorities have stated that action has been taken basing on his representation, in fact, the fourth respondent is continuing the construction. Hence, having no other alternative remedy, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition. 3. This Court, by order dated 17.10.2005 in W.P.M.P.No. 8805 of 2005 has granted interim injunction for a period of four weeks. Now, the fourth respondent has filed the petition in W.V.M.P.No. 645 of 2006 praying to vacate the interim order. 4. According to the learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent, with regard to the same subject matter, a Civil Suit is pending and injunction has also been obtained by the writ petitioner herein for the same prayer. That apart, the learned senior counsel has further submitted that a notice has been issued under Section 56 of The Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, with regard to demolition of the alleged illegal construction. Subsequent to this, the fourth respondent has submitted a revised plan on 5.8.2005 and basing on the pendency of the writ petition, orders could not be passed in the above revised plan. That apart, according to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner has constructed a building without obtaining any proper permission or proper sanction from the Authorities concerned. As such, the petitioner had not approached this Court with clean hands. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after getting the proper permission and also proper sanction, the building has been constructed and he has got the proof for the same. That apart, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Civil Suit has been filed by the fourth respondent and not by the petitioner. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after getting the proper permission and also proper sanction, the building has been constructed and he has got the proof for the same. That apart, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Civil Suit has been filed by the fourth respondent and not by the petitioner. That apart, injunction has been given with regard to the construction of the wall and not with regard to the building in question. As such, the injunction obtained in Civil Suit as contended by the learned senior counsel will not be a bar for the injunction, which is sought for in this writ petition. 6. That apart, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Authorities themselves admitted that the fourth respondent has put up the construction in contravention of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, as such, they have issued a notice, hence, the prayer sought for, is well within the Rules. 7. I have considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, according to Section 56(4) of The Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, any notice issued under the said Section shall not have an effect, pending the final determination or withdrawal of the said application. Admittedly, the notice has been issued only with regard to demolition of the building in question. But, as such, no notice has been issued with regard to the illegal construction. Hence, even relying on Section 56(4) of The Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, now, the fourth respondent cannot take a stand that he can proceed with the construction in view of sub-clause (4) of Section 56 of The Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. As such, pending the final orders in the revised plan, the fourth respondent shall not continue with the further construction. Pending the revised plan, the Authority shall not take any action with regard to the demolition of the building in question. As such, pending the final orders in the revised plan, the fourth respondent shall not continue with the further construction. Pending the revised plan, the Authority shall not take any action with regard to the demolition of the building in question. That apart, since allegations and, counter allegations have been made, both by the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent, with regard to construction of building in their respective lands, the fourth respondent is also at liberty to bring to the notice of the third respondent about the irregularity with regard to the building constructed by the petitioner in his land and so also, the petitioner can also bring to the notice of the third respondent, the illegalities committed by the fourth respondent in the construction of the building in question and after providing opportunity to both parties, the third respondent is directed to pass an order in the revised plan submitted by the fourth respondent on 5.8.2005 as well as in the complaints lodged by both the parties within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, the connected W.V.M.P.No. 645 of 2006 and W.P.M.P. No. 8805 of 2005 are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.