Judgment :- Heard Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.N.Subbarayalu the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr.V.Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second and third respondents and Mr.R.Subramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent has put up an unauthorised construction in Survey Nos.474C/2 and 477A (R.S.No.477/1C) without obtaining the planning permission from the respondents 1 to 3, as contemplated under The Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, read with The Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Hill Stations) Building Rules, 1993. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, it has been stated that the first respondent had approved the Plan No.32/1998, dated 2. 1999, for the construction of the house measuring 174.37 square meters in the land in question. It is also stated that the first respondent is empowered to approve the plan for constructions measuring below 250 square meters, as per the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, it has been stated that he had submitted a plan of the proposed building for the necessary approval. By the proceedings, dated 2. 1999, the first respondent had approved the Plan and had accorded the permission for the construction of the building. Therefore, the allegations made by the petitioner are false. 5. At the stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had submitted that a notice has been issued on the fourth respondent regarding the alleged unauthorised additional construction, vide letter No.Na.Ba.No.201/2006, dated 12. 2007. Pursuant to the said notice, it is expected that the authorities concerned would proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.