Judgment :- Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent has already been given effect to. He further referred to pendency of the suit in O.S.No. 725 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore and that the permission granted by the first respondent was subject to the final outcome of the case pending before the District Court, Coimbatore. In the circumstances, the question of disturbing the order passed by the first respondent does not arise. Quite apart from that, the petitioner has right of appeal under the Act and hence, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy available under the Act and not by way of filing this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent has failed to consider the objection of the petitioner and granted the permit on the basis of the legal opinion obtained from the Government Pleader, High Court, Madras. It shows the non application of mind and as such, the order passed by the first respondent is in violation of principle of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside. 3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the first respondent after extracting the legal opinion of the Government Pleader, without considering the objection of the petitioner, has passed an order. Hence, I have no hesitation in accepting the plea of the petitioner for setting aside the order of the first respondent. However, it may be noted that the order passed by the first respondent was given effect to by the Regional Transport Authority as early as 15.2.2010, much prior to the filing of the writ petition. In the circumstances, without disturbing the order of the first respondent, the first respondent is hereby directed to consider the objection of the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that the order passed on 12.2.2010 shall remain in force till the first respondent passes an order on the objection of the petitioner. It is open to the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law. 4. In result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.