Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. It is submitted that the impugned notice had been issued, on 11. 1998, and the petitioner had submitted a revised plan, on 111. 1998. Thereafter, the second respondent had issued a notice, dated 112. 1998, granting the petitioner thirty days time to produce the required documents. Even though the petitioner had submitted the required documents, the respondents are initiating steps to demolish the building belonging to the petitioner without considering the application of the petitioner, dated 111. 1998. 3. Mr.V.Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and Mr.P.Srinivas, the learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents have not controverted the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents had submitted that the revised plan application submitted by the petitioner, on 111. 1998, and the connected records had already been returned to the petitioner and therefore, there are no records available on their files pending consideration as stated by the petitioner. 4. On such submissions being made, the petitioner is directed to re-submit the revised plan application along with the required documents to the second respondent to be considered, on merits and in accordance with law. On receipt of such revised plan application along with the required documents, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of such application. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.