Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that in spite of an order, dated 12.8.2011, having been passed by the second respondent, with regard to shifting of the flour mill, in question, the fourth respondent had not shifted the said flour mill, till date. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent had submitted that this Court may be pleased to grant three months time to shift the flour mill from the present place location. In such circumstances, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents 1 to 3, had stated that the fourth respondent has been running the flour mill, unauthorisedly, for a period of nearly five years, causing noise and air pollution and therefore, the fourth respondent may be directed to shift the flour mill in question, without any further delay. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the fourth respondent to shift the flour mill in question, within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which it would be open to the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate action against the fourth respondent, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.