Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the license issued to G.Raghuraman, S/o.Ganghadharan, the fifth respondent, by the first respondent for running Balaji Tiffin Centre at Door No.49, Strahanas Road, (Perambur Barracks), Pattalam, Purasaiwalkam, Chennai. 2. It is submitted, that the part of the property bearing Door No.48, Strahans Road, Perambur Barracks, Pattalam, Chennai measuring 1292 sq.ft. out of 2888 sq.ft, was purchased by petitioner from Tmt. Prithibala, Wife of J.Ashok Kumar Lunia vide sale deed dated 05.12.2003. The property purchased by petitioner is corner building having five shops at the ground floor with first floor for residential purpose. 3. The fourth respondent is the owner of the property bearing Door No.49, Strahans Road, been who has leased out a small shop facing Devaraja Mudali Street to R5 and R6. The respondents 5 and 6, being lessee, are running a Tiffin Centre in the leased property in the name of "Balaji Tiffin Centre" under a valid license issued in the name of the fifth respondent, who is the partner of respondent no.6. 4. It is pleaded, that the sixth respondent is a Councilor of Division No.98, therefore, got the license in favour of respondent no.5 by using his political influence. The firm of respondent nos. 5 & 6 is running a Tiffin Centre from 5 a.m. to midnight 12'O clock with four hours break. The Tiffin Centre, being run by the firm, sells foodstuff at cheap rate. 5. The submission of petitioner is that the area of the shop is not suitable for running the Tiffin Centre, as the shop has no Chimneys, no ventilators, no drainage facilities, no water facility, nor any toilet. The firm does not provide any seating arrangement for the customers, who purchase foodstuff from the firm. 6. The customers of the firm throw wastage / garbage on the street in front of the shop, which attracts insects, ants, flies besides giving foul smell. This causes inconvenience to the tenants of the petitioner. On account of the inconvenience, the petitioner has filed a complaint with the respondent nos.1 to 3, but no action has been taken on the representation filed by petitioner. 7. This causes inconvenience to the tenants of the petitioner. On account of the inconvenience, the petitioner has filed a complaint with the respondent nos.1 to 3, but no action has been taken on the representation filed by petitioner. 7. The petitioner further submits that the licence granted in favour of respondent no.5 was in violation of the procedure laid down for the grant of licence to run the Tiffin Centre. It is submitted that inspite of legal notice, issued by petitioner, no steps have been taken either by respondent nos.5 & 6 to stop the Tiffin Centre, nor respondent nos.1 to 3 have initiated any action. 8. It is the case of petitioner, that instead of taking action against the firm or closing the business, respondent no.1 shifted the water pump installed in front of the petitioner's property so as to cause him inconvenience. On the pleadings referred to above, learned counsel for the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the licence granted in favour of the 5th respondent for running the Tiffin Centre. 9. The writ petition, as framed, is totally misconceived. The averments made hereinabove show, that the petitioner is alleging nuisance against the firm in running the business. The petitioner, therefore, has statutory remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure to deal with nuisance. The dispute raised herein cannot be adjudicated in absence of evidence, being led by the parties, specially when the nuisance is said to have been caused to the tenants of petitioner and not to the petitioner. 10. Though this writ petition as framed is not competent, but learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 states at the bar, that the licence granted to respondent nos.5 and 6 stands cancelled after issuing show cause notice to him. 11. In view of cancellation of licence by respondent no.1, the relief claimed in this writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, but with no order as to costs. 13. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.