Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. The petitioners are residents of Perumal Koil Street, Gobichettipalayam Town, Erode District. Aggrieved by the increased activities of respondents 8 to 12, who are running wedding halls in the same street and in the nearby area, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that because of so many wedding halls in their vicinity, there is air and noise pollution. Health problem has also arisen out of throwing garbage materials without any restriction in the public streets. Hence the petitioners have been making representations to the Authorities and they were in vain. They also stated that respondents 8 to 12 have put up the wedding halls without obtaining proper licence in terms of the guidelines issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning. 3. The learned counsel for the 11th respondent submitted that 11th respondent is already having licence for running the wedding hall. 4. The Commissioner for Gobichettipalayam Municipality, after notice served on him in this writ petition, referring to the grievance projected by the petitioners, had issued notice to respondents 8 to 12, stating that they should provide sound proof system and also provide for parking place on their own expenses and take the responsibility for garbage disposal and directed that waste food should not be thrown into the drainage. He further directed that they should obtain a Certificate from the Public Health Officer and from the District Police as well as from the Fire department. He also warned that if respondents 8 to 12 do not take steps to implement these directions, steps will be taken in public interest and the defiant wedding halls will also be closed, if necessary. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that the Commissioner, Gobichettipalayam Municipality has taken appropriate steps in respect of grievance projected by the petitioners. In the light of the above, we do not want to take any action and the Commissioner has to proceed in terms of the Town and Country Planning Act. 6. Further, Mr. M.M. Sundresh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has also objection with respect to the running of wedding halls as they were not constructed in terms of the Town and Country Planning Act. The petitioners also sent representations to the authorities on 9. 6. Further, Mr. M.M. Sundresh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has also objection with respect to the running of wedding halls as they were not constructed in terms of the Town and Country Planning Act. The petitioners also sent representations to the authorities on 9. 2006 to which the Commissioner of Gobichettipalayam Municipality sent a reply on 22. 2007. In view of the petitioners having approached the appropriate statutory authority for redressal of their grievance, it is not a fit case for this Court to take upon itself the task of going into the merits or demerits of the case. The petitioners sent a representation to the first respondent, who will pass appropriate orders, after notice to the concerned parties, in accordance with law. We also make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion one way or other with regard to merits of the case. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.