Judgment :- (Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.07.2005 made in WP.No.22324 of 2005.) P. Sathasivam, J. Considering the limited relief prayed for in the writ petition, we constrained to dispose of the writ appeal itself at this stage. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent-Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai-34, to consider and dispose of her representation dated 18.04.2005 on merits in accordance with law. 3. Before the learned single Judge, none appeared for the petitioner. Inspite of it, the learned single Judge took pain in going through the relief prayed for in the writ petition and on going through the proceedings of the first respondent dated 05.04.2005, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present writ appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the Standing counsel for the first respondent. 5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the facts stated in the proceedings dated 05.04.2005 by the first respondent are incorrect, considering the limited relief prayed for in the writ petition and of the fact that the complaint/grievance of the petitioner was considered by the first respondent and treated as closed and taking note of the said aspect, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. In the absence of any other ground, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order. On the other hand, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WAMP No.851 of 2006 is also dismissed.