J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges the Ext.P5 order passed by the 1^st respondent, Excise Circle Inspector, rejecting the 3^rd respondent's request to shift their outlet to the petitioner's property.

2. Adequate reasons are stated in Ext.P5 for not allowing the request, as it was found that there was a pathway starting from the eastern side of the building, adjacent to the compound wall, that leads to Cheepuvayal Scheduled Caste Nagar. It is further stated that as per the letter issued by the Scheduled Caste Development Officer, Anchal, it was stated that the said Nagar is an approved Nagar and is inhabited by more than sixty scheduled caste families. Finding that the Nagar starts within a distance of 200 meters when considering the path and that the path is currently used by the public, the relocation sought for was rejected.

3. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order by the proposed landlord of the building to which Consumerfed sought relocation.

4. It is not understandable as to how the petitioner can be said to be aggrieved by Ext.P5 order. That apart, cogent reasons have been stated in Ext.P5 for rejecting the request. There is no challenge made by the applicant