an opportunity of being heard, at the time of consideration of the application for license, as has been sought for under Ext.P3. True that it appears to be an innocuous prayer. Even if it is such a prayer, that by itself is no reason for this Court to pass a direction to grant an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. As can be seen from prayer No. 1 in the writ petition extracted above, what the appellant seeks for is issuance of a writ of mandamus against the first respondent. As can be seen from the facts narrated above, here in this case it was respondents 2 to 4 who have applied for grant of license under the F.L. Rules. Going by the case of the appellant he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No. 10818/2017 for the regularisation of the construction of Indraprastha Building alleging that it is an unauthorised construction and admittedly, it is pending consideration before this Court. How can that be a reason capable of creating a legal right on the appellant to be heard in a matter where the question is whether respondents 2 to 4 are entitled to FL-3 license under the F.L.Rules ? Ext.P3 would reveal that even according to the petitioner, the building, the regularisation of construction of which is regularised, is owned by Messrs. Biju Ramesh and Arun Dhinakar and obviously, raising grievance against the regularisation of the construction of the said building by name
