JUDGMENT : M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. At this stage, it is represented on behalf of the Fifth Respondent that the Learned Counsel for the Fifth Respondent had been appointed as an Additional Advocate General of this Court. Hence, on his behalf, time is prayed for to engage a different Counsel and to file counter affidavit. 2. Be that as it may. A mere glance of the counter affidavit filed by the Zonal Officer, Zone-13 of the First Respondent/Corporation of Chennai, indicates that the Fifth Respondent had obtained planning permission dated 25.04.2011 and he had commenced the additional construction without obtaining planning permission from the competent authority. Hence, action against the unauthorised construction was initiated and that the construction was stopped. 3. It transpires that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner's brother one N.Kasi Viswanathan filed W.P.No.30953 of 2016 praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 to 4 therein to consider the representation dated 30.05.2016 and take necessary action within a time to be specified by this Court. In fact, this Court, on 07.09.2016, had passed the following order: "4. ... Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court hereby directs that the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent shall appear before the Zonal Officer concerned on 15th of this month, who shall conduct an enquiry by hearing the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent and submit his report to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai immediately, who, in return, shall take a decision, on merits and in accordance with law, by the end of this month. Status quo shall be maintained by the parties till then. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. .." 4. Status quo shall be maintained by the parties till then. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. .." 4. In view of the categorical admission made on behalf of the First Respondent/Greater Chennai Corporation, through its Zonal Officer, Zone-13, Greater Chennai Corporation to the effect that if any unauthorised construction is carried out by the Fifth Respondent, further action against him would be taken in terms of the ingredients of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, this Court, to prevent the aberration of justice and in furtherance of the substantial cause of justice, directs the Zonal Officer, Zone-13 of the First Respondent/Greater Chennai Corporation, having office at Dr.Muthulakshmi Salai, Adyar, Chennai-600020, to inspect the petition mentioned property and to submit his report in a complete and comprehensive manner, after ascertaining as to whether the construction carried out by the Fifth Respondent is an unauthorised one or otherwise. 5. For filing of the said report by the Zonal Officer, Zone-13, Greater Chennai Corporation, the matter is adjourned to 12.12.2018. 6. In the meanwhile, it is open to the Fifth Respondent to take necessary steps to file change of Vakalat by his Counsel on record.