Judgment :- 1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the order of the third respondent, dated 16.6.2008 as well as the order of the fourth respondent, dated 11.6.2008 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a consequential direction to respondents 3 to 5 to assess and collect property tax for the factory premises of the petitioner in the name and style "Sri Veeramathi Amman Fibres" situated at S.F.Nos.319/1A1 and 319/1A in Pethanaickanur Village, Pollachi Tk., Coimbatore District. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 25.8.2008 and an interim stay of the impugned order was also granted by this court. Subsequently, on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, counter affidavits, dated 17.10.2008 and 06.04.2009 respectively were filed. The petitioner had filed a reply affidavit dated 19.2.2010. The petitioner had also filed a memo, dated 29.3.2009. In paragraph 2 of the memo, it was stated as follows: "2. The petitioner respectfully states that the above W.P. came up for final hearing before this Honble Court on 16.03.2009. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Honble Court was pleased to observe that if the petitioner demolishes (i)the AC sheet and E.B. Room construction on the southern side and (ii)the toilet constructed on the front side of his factory premises (referred to in the impugned order dt.16.06.2008 of the 3rd respondent as violative of Rule 6(4) of the Rules) and file a Memo to that effect, the consequential direction sought for by him can be granted to him and posted the W.P. for orders on 30.03.2009. In obedience to the observation made by this Honble Court, the petitioner has demolished and removed the said (i)AC Sheet E.B. Room and (ii) the Toilet on 18.03.2009 itself. The petitioner is producing herewith the photographs in proof of the same." 3. This was done pursuant to the report submitted by the Deputy Director, Town Planning, Coimbatore, dated 14.5.2008. In that, the Deputy Director has stated that the toilet was constructed contrary to Rule 6(4) of the Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, it was claimed that the petitioner had installed a coir factory. It was not built as per the approved plan of the panchayat. In that, the Deputy Director has stated that the toilet was constructed contrary to Rule 6(4) of the Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, it was claimed that the petitioner had installed a coir factory. It was not built as per the approved plan of the panchayat. It was built on the south western portion of the petitioners land, whereas approval was obtained showing that construction was to be on the north eastern side. If it is on north eastern side, it will be away from human habitation, whereas the present location was very much closer to human habitation. The noise pollution that may be created by the factory will make it impossible for the public to live in peace. Therefore, reliance was placed upon Rule 33 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Buildings Rules, wherein any construction of structure that endanger to human life was prohibited. With reference to the residents of the locality failing to object to the proposed construction, it was stated that originally the petitioner had proposed to set up Coconut drying yard and not a coir factory. The present attempt to put up a coir factory with illegal construction is liable for demolition. 5. In the reply affidavit, it was claimed that the coir factory was established after getting all required approval, licence, permission and consent from the authorities. It is only after two years after the purchase of land, a new colony had come up nearby the factory premises. The present colony people had given no objection certificate to the factory. The establishment of factory will only help the residents of colony. It was claimed that at the instigation of fifth respondent, one of the farm servant had made all kinds of objection. The factory building was built as per the approved plan. The Commissioner of Anamalai Panchayat Union along with a Technical supervisor had inspected the factory on 28.1.2008 and by letter dated 12.2.2008 gave direction to fourth respondent to assess property tax. With reference to the visit of the Deputy Director, Town Planning, Coimbatore, in paragraph 3(C) of the reply, it was stated as follows: "...... Immediately, on the directions issued by the 3rd respondent, the Dy. Director, Town Planning, Coimbatore viz. With reference to the visit of the Deputy Director, Town Planning, Coimbatore, in paragraph 3(C) of the reply, it was stated as follows: "...... Immediately, on the directions issued by the 3rd respondent, the Dy. Director, Town Planning, Coimbatore viz. a competent Authority and an Expert in the field has inspected our Factory Building and submitted a report dt.14.05.2008, stating our Factory Buildings have been constructed in the site as per the measurements in the approved Plan. However, he has stted that without leaving open spaces (i) an A.C. Sheet, E.B and Power Room has been constructed on the southern side and (ii)a toilet has been constructed on the front side in violation of Rule 6(4) of the Rules. Based on the said Report, the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned order dt.16.06.2008 and sent to the 4th respondent panchayat. In the said order, the 3rd respondent has referred to the above Report and stated that our Factory Buildings have been constructed in the site as per the measurements in the Plan. However, he has stated that without leaving open spaces (i) an A.C. Sheet, E.B. and Power Room has been constructed on the southern side and (ii) a toilet has been constructed on the front side in violation of Rule 6(4) of the Rules and instructed the 4th respondent to take action as per the Rules and after the rectification of the said defects, assess property Tax for our Factory Buildings and submit a Report...." 6. As already noted in the memo, dated 29.3.2009, the petitioner on his own demolished the A.C. Sheet and E.B. Room and also the toilet on 18.3.2009. The said fact was not contradicted by the respondents. Certain photographs as well the plan of the panchayat was also produced. This court finds that the contentions raised by the petitioner are acceptable and are supported by records. The stand of the fourth respondent of which the fifth respondent is the President, who has been made as an individual party, should be negatived, as they were not supported by any records. This court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has made earnest efforts to establish a factory and that the minor defects have been rectified. 7. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand allowed. This court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has made earnest efforts to establish a factory and that the minor defects have been rectified. 7. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand allowed. The respondents are directed to assess the petitioners premises for the purpose of levying property tax so as to enable him to run the factory without any further hindrance. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.