Judgment : The notice issued to Respondent 1 has not been returned. Hence, Sri R. Devadas, learned Government Advocate to accept notice and file memo for appearance within a period of four weeks. 2. The petitioner is before this Court making out a grievance that the respondent 4 herein is running a commercial establishment in the premises indicated in the notice. The petitioner contends that since the same is a residential area, a commercial establishment as run by respondent 4 cannot be continued in the said premises. In this regard, the petitioner is stated to have issued legal notice to the respondent 4 and also made representation to the respondents 2 and 3. Since according to the petitioner no action has been initiated, he is before this Court seeking for a mandamus. 3. Sri. G.R. Mohan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent 4 would contend that in fact, the respondent 4 is not running the industry, but it belongs to Sri Anand Raj, who is the owner of the industrial unit as well as the property. It is not in dispute that the said person is the brother of the respondent 4. 4. Sri Gurudev G. Gachchinamath, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 would state that subsequently action has been initiated and spot panchanama has been drawn and the offending industrial establishment has been ordered to be closed and at present it has been closed. 5. On noticing these rival contentions, it is seen that with regard to the grievance of the petitioner that an industrial unit is being run in the premises in question, the learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has made a submission before this Court stating that action has been initiated and the said industrial unit has been closed. If that be so, in a petition of this nature, where a mandamus has been sought, it is to be noticed that respondents 1 and 2 have initiated action in accordance with law. To this effect, the office of the second respondent shall issue an endorsement to the petitioner intimating the nature of action that has been initiated to redress the grievance of the petitioner and also indicate the further action that would be taken in the matter if such action is required in law. 6. To this effect, the office of the second respondent shall issue an endorsement to the petitioner intimating the nature of action that has been initiated to redress the grievance of the petitioner and also indicate the further action that would be taken in the matter if such action is required in law. 6. With regard to whether the industry in question belongs to the respondent 4 or to any other person, it is unnecessary to go into this aspect in this petition since that is an aspect which is required to be considered by respondents 2 and 3 while initiating action against the appropriate person. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.