1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(md).No.8801 of 2011 and MP.No.1 of 2011 Ramesh ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.08.2011 and direct the respondents to consider him for the appointment of the posting Village Assistant. For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Additional Govt. Pleader O R D E R Sensing the mind of the court, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. Permission for withdrawal is refused for the following reasons: Alleging that the petitioner has not been considered for the post of Village Assistant, he has sent a representation on 01.08.2011. Even before the said representation could reach the destination i.e addressee, alleging that the respondents, have not considered the same, the petitioner has come forward to file a writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petition on 02.08.2011, just treating this Court, as a post office, for issuing a direction, to consider the said representations. 2.It is well settled that mandamus can be sought for, only if there is a right conferred on the petitioner and consequently, there should be a failure on the part of the authorities in discharging their duties and responsibilities, under statutory provisions. Within a day's time, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and sought for a mandamus in such haste, which is nothing but frivolous, for which, this Court, while dismissing the writ petition, imposes a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to be paid by the petitioner to the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, shall realise the cost under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act. 3.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.2,000/-. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Ramanathapuram District. +1cc to M/s.S.M.A.Jinnah, Advocate, Sr.No.25628 +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No. 26566 vs ssk/09.08.2011 /7c -2p/- W.P.(MD).No.8801 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/