Judgment : The Writ Petitioner states that she is the Manager of R.I.L.P School, Edathirinji, Thrissur District. She states that the managership of the school was the subject matter of a dispute and it was settled in O.S.No.547 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Irinjalakkuda. As per the decree, the petitioner and other members of the family are to function as Manager of the school on rotation basis. The Parent Teachers' Association of the school represented by its President Sreedevi filed WP(C) No.6751 of 2009 alleging that the Manager failed to effect periodical maintenance to the school buildings and that the representation submitted to the Assistant Educational Officer was not being properly considered. In that Writ Petition, the petitioner was the third respondent. The Writ Petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment dated 18th March, 2009 directing the Assistant Educational Officer, Irinjalakuda to inspect the school with notice to the Manager, the President of the Parent Teachers Association and the Headmaster and to take appropriate action. It is stated that the Writ Petitioner in the present Writ Petition, who was the third respondent in WP (C) No.6751 of 2009 did not receive any notice in that Writ Petition. 2. Pointing out that the Parent Teachers Association did not take any decision to file the Writ Petition (W.P(C)6751 of 2009) and that the President of the Parent Teachers Association was acting as "a benami for someone else", the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 21.5.2008 to the Registrar General of the High Court. In Ext.P8, it was stated that the petitioner proposed to file a review petition in WP(C) No.6751 of 2009. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P9 representation dated 19th October, 2010 to the Registrar General. In Ext.P9, the petitioner, the petitioner status in the last paragraph thus: "Thereafter I had submitted representations before your good self humbly requesting your good self to bestow kind attention in this matter after conducting such enquiry as your good self may deem just and fit in the facts and circumstances of this case. In Ext.P9, the petitioner, the petitioner status in the last paragraph thus: "Thereafter I had submitted representations before your good self humbly requesting your good self to bestow kind attention in this matter after conducting such enquiry as your good self may deem just and fit in the facts and circumstances of this case. I humbly submit that a sacrosanct forum like this Hon'ble Court which is the sentinel in qui vie and the ultimate protector of the constitutional and statutory rights of citizens as well as others has been used by the petitioner in the said writ petition and the fugitives behind her to calculatedly deflect the course of justice which should never be allowed to happen and which should be nipped in the bid by taking deterrent and stringent action by your good self. It was requesting such action that I had submitted representations before. As a reminder I am submitting this representation to your good self humbly seeking your good self's indulgence in this matter by initiating appropriate enquiry in this matter against the petitioner in the writ petition mentioned above and the fugitives behind her." 3. The relief prayed for in the Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Registrar General to consider Exts.P8 and P9 representations and to pass orders thereon. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the High Court of Kerala represented by the Registrar General, the Assistant Educational Officer and Sreedevi Rajeesh, the former President of the Parent Teachers' Association. 4. The Registry noticed defects in the Writ Petition and opined that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The petitioner replied stating that since Exts.P8 and P9 representations are pending before the Registrar General, the Writ Petition is maintainable. The Registry was not inclined to accept the reply made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore, the Writ Petition has been posted in the defect list. 5. WP(C) No.6751 of 2009 was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 18th March, 2009. If the petitioner is aggrieved by that judgment, she could file a review petition or a Writ Appeal. If the petitioner wanted to pursue action against the President of the Parent Teachers' Association for having allegedly acted as "benami" for somone else, the petitioner could move this court appropriately in WP(C) No.6751 of 2009 or she could file a Writ Appeal. If the petitioner wanted to pursue action against the President of the Parent Teachers' Association for having allegedly acted as "benami" for somone else, the petitioner could move this court appropriately in WP(C) No.6751 of 2009 or she could file a Writ Appeal. Instead, the petitioner filed two representations before the Registrar General for taking appropriate action against Sreedevi, who was the former President of the Parent Teachers' Association. The Registrar General has no jurisdiction to take action against the third respondent. (Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.6751 of 2009). Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pray for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Registrar General to dispose of Exts.P8 and P9 representations. It is trite that to issue a Writ of Mandamus, the Writ Petitioner should have a right and the respondent concerned should have a corresponding duty and the respondent failed to discharge that duty. There is no duty on the Registrar to consider Exts.P8 and P9 representations nor could the Registrar initiate any proceedings against the third respondent. 6. The Rules of the High Court of Kerala 1971 provides for the procedure for institution of proceedings. Rule 32 provides that all petitions, appeals and other proceedings shall be presented in person by the party or his Advocate or the Advocate's registered Clerk. Rule 33 provides that unless the Court otherwise orders, no document required to be presented to or filed into Court which is sent by post or by telegram shall be received or filed into court. Sending of papers to the Registrar General would not be sufficient for initiating any proceedings in the High Court. Ext.P4 Writ Petition was disposed of much before the petitioner filed representations before the Registrar General. Even if Ext.P4 Writ Petition was pending, the Registrar General could not have taken any action on the representation submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner could only approach the court to ventilate her grievance. Sending a representation or a petition to the Registrar General would not be a substitute for filing appropriate petitions, appeals or other proceedings before the High Court. In view of the above, I am of the view that the Registry was right in taking the view that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The objections are sustained. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected as not maintainable.