JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent no. 1 and 2 i.e. the Municipal Corporation to take action in respect of the objection filed by the petitioner against the illegal construction work of the respondent no.3 and also to stop the illegal construction by the respondent no.3. 2. Heard Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. KK Pal, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Also heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3. 3. The brief facts needed to be discussed are that the petitioner and the respondent no.3 are residing side by side. When the respondent no.3 started unauthorized construction over his own land, he has also demolished the boundary wall of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent no.3, the petitioner submitted a complaint by way of objection to respondent no.2 regarding the unauthorized construction of the respondent no.3. As the respondent no.2 did not take any action, except issuing notice, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. 4. The respondent no.1 and 2 by way of filing counter affidavit have submitted that regarding the construction of respondent no.3, an enquiry has already been done and from that enquiry report it reveals that the respondent no.3 has deviated from his approved plan. 5. The respondent no. 3 by way of filing counter affidavit denied the allegations of the petitioner to the effect that he has started construction without following the Municipal rules. He has also stated that the municipal authority has given permission for his construction on 20.02.2014. The respondent no.3 also has denied the allegation of the petitioner that he has demolished the boundary wall of the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 has also in his counter affidavit stated that the respondent 2 had prepared a false report regarding the construction of the petitioner 6. When the matter is taken up for admission hearing, Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 has submitted that the matter can be disposed of at the admission stage itself directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 to proceed with the enquiry as started by them and also proceed with necessary action in accordance with law. 7. Ms. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 has submitted that the matter can be disposed of at the admission stage itself directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 to proceed with the enquiry as started by them and also proceed with necessary action in accordance with law. 7. Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that she has no objection if the matter is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to proceed with the proceedings initiated by them on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner against respondent no.3 and the respondent no. 2 shall pass appropriate order against the illegal construction of the respondent no. 3 in accordance with law. 8. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and 2 also agreed to the proposal of the learned counsel for respondent no.3 9. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Executive Officer, Agartala Municipal Corporation, i.e. respondent no. 2, for completing the proceeding initiated under Section 133 of the Municipal Act, against respondent no.3 within a period of 2(two) months from today after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 and pass necessary order in accordance with law. It is needless to say that till the proceeding is completed by the Municipal Corporation, the respondent no.3 should not be allowed to proceed with the construction. Ordered accordingly. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost. Copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation.