M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue permit in their favour forthwith which was renewed by the resolution dated 21. 1. 1997 for five years in the name of petitioners mother Smt. Shanti Devi. ( 2 ) THERE is no material in support of the allegations made in the writ petition that the petitioners made representation to the authority concerned for issuing such permit in their favour. ( 3 ) THE law of mandamus is well-settled that no mandamus will be issued unless before approaching this Court, the petitioner has asked for Justice from the authority concerned and justice has been denied to him. Ordinarily, justice will be demanded in the shape of a representation. Vide Dr. Mithilesh Dikshit v. Management Committee and Ors. , 2001 (2) AWC 1586 and State of Haryana and Anr. v. Chanan Mal etc. , AIR 1976 SC 1654 . ( 4 ) NO doubt, in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that the petitioners made an application before the authority concerned for issuing such permit in their favour, but copy of any such representation has not been annexed. Hence, we disbelieve the allegations made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the petitioners made any such application before the authority concerned praying for grant and issue of permit in their favour. If any application is sought to be relied upon, a copy of the same would have been annexed to the writ petition, but no such copy has been annexed. Hence, it is evident that no such application was ever made by the petitioners. ( 5 ) IN view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed at this stage. .