The court asserts the necessity for authorities to act on pending applications and the importance of refraining from coercive actions during review.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records leading to Ext. P1 and quash the original of the same;

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 5th respondent to pass orders on Ext. P5 granting consent to operate to the petitioner ;

iii) permit the petitioners to produce translations of the vernacular documents as and when directed by this Hon’ble Court;

iv) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

(SIC)

2. The main prayer in this writ petition is against Ext.P1. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 for granting consent to operate before the 5^th respondent. In the light of the above fact, I think, there can be a direction to the 5^th respondent to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders in it, and till then coercive steps based on Ext.P1 can be kept in abeyance.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The 5^th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 (if it is received and pending as on today) and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. Till final orders are passed as directed above, coercive steps based on Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance.

Sd/-