JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 order on a specific contention that in spite of the specific direction issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 request submitted by the petitioner, a hearing was conducted by the 4^th respondent and orders have been passed by the 3^rd respondent vide Ext.P6. Such a specific contention is raised in Ground (b) of this writ petition. Though a counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 and 4, there is no answer to the said averment.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation as well.

3. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration.

Accordingly, Ext.P6 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 3^rd respondent to hear the petitioner as well as respondents 5 and 6 and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-