The petitioners, assailing the correctness of the impugned resolution dated 23-10-2003 vide Annexure-B and licence dated 5-11-2003 issued by the Town Municipal Council, Srirangapatna in favour of 5th respondent vide Annexure-C, and so also the order dated 29-12-2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura Sub-Division, Pandavapura vide Annexure-D, have presented this writ petition.

2. The petitioners are claiming to be the permanent residents of Doddagaradi Street of Srirangapatna Town, Mandya District. The land measuring 5 to 6 feet width is connecting the main road of Srirangapatna. Fifth respondent is the Proprietor of an industrial unit called "Hindustan Engineering Works". Previously, 5th respondent had established the said industrial unit at Kuppannagaradi Beedi, Srirangapatna Town, Mandya District which was his own building. When things stood thus, the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District has initiated the proceedings against the 5th respondent, as he was found that 5th respondent is running the industrial unit in the name and style of "Hindustan Engineering Works at Kuppannagaradi Beedi, Srirangapatna Town, Mandya District, which is the residential locality and he was directed to shift the said industrial unit to non-residential area. Be that as it may, 5th respondent has filed an application before the 4th respondent-Town Municipal Council, Srirangapatna for licence and an endorsement was issued by the 4th respondent vide Annexure-A. Again, 5th respondent has filed an application before the 4th respondent for licence. The said application filed by the 5th respondent was placed before the 4th respondent-Council, who in turn, has passed the resolution on 23-10-2003 vide Annexure-B and on the basis of the said resolution, licence was issued to the 5th respondent on 5-11-2003 aide Annexure-C. It is the further case of the petitioners that, thereafter, they have filed petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura Sub-Division, Pandavapura, questioning the licence granted in favour of the 5th respondent. The Assistant Commissioner has rejected the said petition filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders as referred above vides Annexure-B and D and seeking further directions, petitioners have presented this writ petition.

3. I have heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners and the learned Counsels for respondents.

4. After careful perusal of the materials available on record, it emerges on the face of the endorsement, issued by the Chief Officer of the 4th respondent on 14-5-2003 rejecting the request made by the 5th respondent for establishment of an Engineering workshop on the grounds that the residents of the said locality have filed objections for granting any permission and in view of the objections filed by the residents of that area and in the interest of the public in general and as the said area is meant for residential purpose, his request cannot be considered. Ignoring the said endorsement given by the Chief Officer of the 4th respondent, the representation given by the 5t.h respondent was again placed before the Council of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent without looking into the endorsement given by the chief officer and without calling for the report from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Mandya, it has proceeded and granted the permission to 5th respondent. Thereafter, this fact was brought to the notice of the Assistant, Commissioner Pandavapura Sub-Division Pandavapura by the petitioners by way of filing an appeal. But the said request was rejected. After perusing the Annexure-D, C and B, it emerges from the contents stated therein that, respondents 2, 3 and 4 have proceeded to pass orders contrary to the relevant materials available on record and the case made out by these petitioners and other residents of that area. Further, it is pertinent note that, learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of his submission, has produced