JUDGMENT : In W.P.(C) No.1855 of 2025, petitioner has sought for a direction to dispose of Ext.P8 application expeditiously, while the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6509 of 2025 has sought for a direction to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 therein and also to ensure that the stock of an erstwhile establishment by name ‘MRT Metal Mart’ is secured and not clandestinely removed and sold. 2. The disputing parties - Sri. Raveendran and Sri. Suveendran are siblings. They have another brother by the name of Maheendran. W.P.(C) No.1855 of 2025 is filed by Sri. Raveendran while W.P.(C) No.6509 of 2025 is filed by Sri. Suveendran. Their father had started a business establishment by name ‘MRT Metal Mart’. As is often the case, after the time of the originator of a business, the legal heirs engage themselves in disputes leading to severe acrimony between them. Similar issues seems to have arisen in the instant case as well. After the death of the petitioner's father, GST registration of the MRT Metal Mart was transferred in the name of Sri. N. Raveendran. Subsequently, the first respondent cancelled the registration of the said establishment by order dated 10.01.2025 as per Ext.P11. Consequent to the said cancellation, an application was filed by Sri. Ravieendran for revocation of the cancellation of registration as per Rule 23(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Immediately after filing the said application, he approached this Court through W.P.(C) No.1855 of 2025, seeking a direction to dispose of the application. 3. Sri. Suveendran impleaded in the said writ petition as he wanted the competent authority to consider his version also, while considering the application for revocation of cancellation of registration. According to him, there are various disputes between the siblings regarding the entitlement of Sri.Raveendran to continue the business and a civil suit as O.S.No.172/2022 is also pending between the parties. Sri.Suveendran alleges that some of the documents produced by Sri.Raveendran to justify his claim for entitlement to continue the business, are forged. 4. in the meantime, Sri. Suveendran filed W.P.(C) No.6509 of 2025 to dispose of a representation dated 10.02.2025 filed by him before the first respondent in that writ petition. In the said representation, he has pointed out various anomalies, which according to him requires the attention of the first respondent and the unauthorised activities allegedly being carried out by Sri.Raveendran ought to be halted. 5. Sri. In the said representation, he has pointed out various anomalies, which according to him requires the attention of the first respondent and the unauthorised activities allegedly being carried out by Sri.Raveendran ought to be halted. 5. Sri. Raveendran who is the third respondent in the said writ petition has filed a counter affidavit, pointing out that in the civil suit filed as O.S.No.172 of 2022, an interim application was filed for appointment of a receiver and the Sub Court had, by order dated 10.04.2023, refused to appoint a receiver after observing that the accounts of the business and the details of the stock and the transactions involved and the profits generated in respect of the business MRT Metal Mart should be filed every three months. According to Sri. Raveendran, his brother is attempting to obtain indirectly what he was denied in the civil suit and that Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be resorted to when the civil court had declined such a relief. It is also pointed out that FAO No.91 of 2023 had been filed before this Court and no orders had been obtained till date and therefore this Court ought not to grant any of the reliefs prayed for. 6. I have heard Sri.Mayankutty Mather, the learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.S.Parvathy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Premjith Nagendran, the learned counsel for the additional 2 nd respondent, Sri.V.Girishkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent as well as Smt.Jasmin M.M., the learned Government Pleader. I have also heard Sri.P.A.Harish, representing Sri.V.V.Surendran, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, who has filed an impleading petition. 7. As far as W.P.(C) No.1855 of 2025 is concerned, the relief sought for, is only to dispose of a statutory application. Since such an application for revocation of cancellation of registration has to be disposed of in a time bound manner, the said relief has to be allowed. As the additional 2 nd respondent is apparently an interested party, his contentions should also be considered. Therefore, Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) No.1855 of 2025 can be directed to be considered in a time bound manner, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to additional respondents 2 and 3 as well as another legal heir by name Mahendran. Therefore, Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) No.1855 of 2025 can be directed to be considered in a time bound manner, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to additional respondents 2 and 3 as well as another legal heir by name Mahendran. The said decision shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 8. Since this Court was inclined to direct Sri. Suveendran also to be heard before the application for revocation of cancellation of registration is disposed off, relief No.1 in W.P.(C) No.6509 of 2025 is not required to be granted as it becomes practically redundant. 9. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that during the pendency of W.P.(C) No.6509 of 2025, this Court had, on 27.02.2025 directed the 4 th respondent to ensure that the existing stock of the MRT Metal Mart is not removed without getting further orders from this Court, since there was a complaint that after the cancellation of registration, the existing stock were being clandestinely removed. Thereafter on 20.03.2025, this Court directed respondents 1 and 4 to seal forthwith the godowns of the erstwhile MRT Metal Mart pursuant to I.A.No.1 of 2025. 10. Though arguments were addressed by either counsel on the correctness of the order directing sealing of the godowns, especially since the application for appointment of a receiver was declined by the court, I am of the view that the direction to seal the godown of the erstwhile MRT Metal Mart was not on the basis of the dispute between the parties, but solely because of the cancellation of registration and when the registration of a business entity has been cancelled, to protect the rights of all the parties including that of the bank, till a decision is taken by the Commissioner regarding the application for revocation of cancellation, it is only appropriate that the goods in the godown are not permitted to be removed. Therefore, the life of the order dated 20.03.2025 which is confined to the erstwhile MRT Metal Mart godown, must continue till a decision is taken by the first respondent as directed in W.P.(C) No.1855 of 2025. 11. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that on the basis of the interim order, various godowns including those unrelated to MRT Metal Mart have been sealed. 11. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that on the basis of the interim order, various godowns including those unrelated to MRT Metal Mart have been sealed. I make it clear that the order dated 20.03.2025 is confined to the godown of the erstwhile MRT Metal Mart alone and not anything else. The said order shall continue till the Commissioner takes a decision. If any godown other than MRT Metal Mart has been sealed, the aggrieved is at liberty to point it out to the 4 th respondent in W.P.(C) No.6509 of 2025 for appropriate relief. In the result the following directions are issued : 1. The first respondent in W.P.(C) No.1855 of 2025 shall consider Ext.P8 and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in that writ petition as well as to additional respondents 2 and 3. Sri.Maheendran, another brother of the petitioner shall also be issued with the notice of hearing and his address shall be furnished by the petitioner. 2. The order dated 20.03.2025 shall continue till a decision is taken by the first respondent as directed in (1) above. 3. It is clarified that the order dated 20.03.2025 directing to seal the godowns is confined to the erstwhile MRT Metal Mart godowns and if any godown other than that of MRT Metal Mart has been sealed, the aggrieved is at liberty to point it out to the 4 th respondent in W.P.(C) No.6509 of 2025 for appropriate relief. These writ petitions are disposed of as above.