1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 8.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P(MD)No.7589 of 2011 K.M.Hameed .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Tahsildar, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Taluk Office, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2.The District Collector, Kanyakuamri District, Nagercoil. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents particularly the first respondent to consider petitioner's representation, dated 07.09.2006 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame as specified by this Court forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham For Respondents : Mr.TR.Janarthanam Addl. Govt. Pleader O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider petitioner's representation, dated 07.09.2006 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame as specified by this Court forthwith. 2. Heard Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.TR.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents. 3.This Court is not inclined to issue a Writ of Mandamus as sought for in this petition, as the relief sought for by the petitioner (i.e) to consider the representation is dated 07.09.2006, is not justified. There is no acknowledgment to show that such a representation has been given to respondents 1 and 2. In page 19 of the typed set of papers, there is an acknowledgment card addressed to the District Collector and that shows the date as 21.03.2001 and it cannot be related to the representation dated 07.09.2006. Without verifying the documents filed, the Writ petition has been filed in the year 2011 to consider the representation dated 07.09.2006. The reason for this inordinate delay has not been explained. Such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 representation will obviously cause great harassment to the respondent Officer, if they are directed to dispose of a representation which is not in their file. Without any proof of service of the representation, no direction can be issued. Any order passed in this kind of Writ Petition will cause great difficulty to the Executive. The Authority will find it difficult to obey the order of the Court without relevant papers and may also face proceedings for disobeying the orders of Court for no fault of theirs. The petitioner is sternly informed not to file such writ petitions in future. The Writ petition is therefore dismissed. However taking note of the counsel's plea, the Court is not inclined to impose cost. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Tahsildar, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Taluk Office, Nagercoil,Kanyakumari District. 2.The District Collector, Kanyakuamri District, Nagercoil. +1cc to Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, Advocate, Sr.No.22289 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 22362 W.P.(MD)No.7589 of 2011 08.07.2011 PM SMA/29.7.2011/5C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/