JUDGMENT Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus against respondent No.1- Corporation and its employees viz., respondents No.2 and 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though he has sought various reliefs in the petition for the time being he would confine his prayer only to the writ of mandamus against respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider his grievance in terms of Annexure-G submitted to the respondents No.1 to 3. It is further submitted that liberty may be granted to initiate appropriate action against respondents No.4 and 5 on consideration of his complaint dated 13.12.2022 at Annexure-G. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed memo seeking dispensation of notice to respondents No.4 and 5. Considering the submission made at the bar, the petition is considered only in respect of relief sought against respondents No.1 to 3 insofar as non-consideration of application dated 13.12.2022. In view of the submission made the merits of the remaining prayers are not considered and liberty is given to the petitioner to pursue the said prayers after appropriate order is passed by the respondents No.1 to 3 on the application dated 13.12.2022. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the property bearing Khatha No.229/1 described in Annexure- A. It is further case that respondent No.4 is the owner of adjacent site bearing Municipal No.49, PID No.84-4-49, situated at Chikkabanaswadi, Bengaluru described in Annexure- B. It is further contended that respondent No.5 is the builder and respondent No.4 is constructing structure in the property without there being any sanctioned plan and licence for the construction which has commenced. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would refer to Annexure- F, the information dated 2.12.2022 provided by respondent No.2- Assistant Director, Town Planning. Said communication would reveal that plan is not approved. Thereafter, in terms of Annexure- G, petitioner has brought it to the notice of the respondents No.1 to 3 and requested the respondents No.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against respondent No.4. It is further case of the petitioner that though an application is submitted on 13.12.2022, so far, no action is taken by respondents No.1 to 3. 4. Thereafter, in terms of Annexure- G, petitioner has brought it to the notice of the respondents No.1 to 3 and requested the respondents No.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against respondent No.4. It is further case of the petitioner that though an application is submitted on 13.12.2022, so far, no action is taken by respondents No.1 to 3. 4. Since the application is filed by the petitioner on 13.12.2022, based on the information provided by respondent No.2 on 02.12.2022, the respondents No.1 to 3 are under obligation to consider the representation in accordance with law. 5. Under these circumstances, petition is allowed in part. Respondents No.1 to 3 shall consider the application dated 13.12.2022 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. Needless to say that this Court has not expressed anything on the legality or otherwise of the construction made by respondents No.4 and 5 or on the merits of the application dated 13.12.2022. 6. It is also made clear that respondents No.1 to 3 while acting on the application dated 13.12.2022 submitted by the petitioner, shall issue show cause notice to the respondent No.4 and shall provide opportunity of hearing as contemplated under the law, before passing any orders on the merits of the application filed by the petitioner. 7. The entire exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.