Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the records of the second respondent relating to the notice No.23606 dated 08.05.2007 and pass a consequential direction forbearing the respondents from interfering with the beef stall business run at No.11A, Velachery Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. As against the third respondent, the writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 12.01.2012. Pursuant to the issuance of notice before admission, the respondents 1 and 2 have entered appearance. 2. The arguments advanced by Mr.J.Sudhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Ms.Karthikaa Ashok, learned standing counsel for the City Municipal Corporation ofChennai appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 are heard. The materials produced are also taken into consideration. 3. The petitioner was running a beef stall at the premisses bearing No.11A, Velachery Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. He got the licence for the same from the Health Department of Corporation, Chennai in licence Code No.S139030944 dated 16.08.1996. The same was renewed subsequently and last of such renewal of licence was issued on 26.02.2007. Subsequently, when the second respondent inspected the premises, certain defects in compliance with the requirements of license were found, pursuant to which the impugned notice dated 08.05.2007 came to be issued. The defects found therein were listed on the reverse page of the said notice. They are as follows: 1) The petitioner should connect the trade premises drainage water and usage water to drainage only, but the petitioner was allowing his wastage water to S.W.D and the same should be corrected. 2) The writ petitioner should enclose the place with proper mesh to avoid mosquitoes and flies. 3) The walls of the trade premises and the floor should be tiled with red tiles and painting should be done in suitable places. 4) Food handlers certificate should be produced. 5) Exhaust fan should be provided and 6) The licence should be displayed always in the trade premises. 4. Pointing out the said defects, the writ petitioner was called upon to rectify the defects within a week from the date of receipt of the impugned notice and was informed that he would be prosecuted if he failed to do so. 5) Exhaust fan should be provided and 6) The licence should be displayed always in the trade premises. 4. Pointing out the said defects, the writ petitioner was called upon to rectify the defects within a week from the date of receipt of the impugned notice and was informed that he would be prosecuted if he failed to do so. He was also informed that failure to comply with the notice would invite steps being taken under Section 379-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, Act 4 of 1919 to prevent the writ petitioner from continuing to use the above said premises for the above said trade. The said notice has been impugned by the writ petitioner contending that it is malafide, since according to him the same was issued at the instance of Sekar, the third respondent. 5. Admittedly, third respondent is a neighbour. If at all the business place proved to be a public nuisance, a member of a public has got every right to approach the authorities with a request to take action against such nuisance. Furthermore, though the writ petitioner had got the licence to run the beef stall, that licence could not be interpreted to mean a licence to do the trade detrimental to public health in violation of the norms fixed for the same. The second respondent is the competent authority to inspect the trade premises and find out whether there is deficiency in the compliance with the condition of the licence which will lead to a health hazard. Only in exercise of such a power, the second respondent inspected the trade premises of the writ petitioner and found as many as 6 defects pursuant to which the impugned notice was issued calling upon the writ petitioner to rectify the defects within a week from the date of receipt of the notice. Instead of complying with the demand for rectification of the defects and reporting compliance or submitting a reply that the alleged defects were not at all present, the writ petitioner has chosen to rush to this Court with the present writ petition impugning the notice issued by the second respondent. A perusal of the defects pointed out on the reverse page of the impugned notice will show that the defects pointed out in Serial Nos.2 to 6 are clear and unambiguous, though the first one is some what ambiguous. A perusal of the defects pointed out on the reverse page of the impugned notice will show that the defects pointed out in Serial Nos.2 to 6 are clear and unambiguous, though the first one is some what ambiguous. Since the writ petitioner has chosen to rush to this Court simply to avoid compliance with the requirements and to avoid penal and other measures, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.