JUDGMENT :- C.J & T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J 1. Since, the issue involved in both the writ petitions are identical, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.12868 of 2011, is an Advocate appearing in person and has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation and sought for a direction upon the respondents to take appropriate action on his representation dated 24.05.2011, seeking to reconstitute the Joint Drafting Committee of Lokpal Bill with due representation to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women. 3. W.P.No.12431 of 2011 has also been filed as a Public Interest Litigation by one Mr.K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy for direction upon the respondents to take appropriate action on the representation dated 21.04.2011, alleged to have been set by fax. The said representation is addressed to The President of India and other hierarchy of authorities seeking to reconstitute the Joint Drafting Committee of the Lokpal Bill. 4. At the out set, we have to point out that Mr.K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, in paragraph 5 therein has stated that he has sent representation by fax on 21.04.2011, to reconstitute the Committee. Copy of such representation has been filed in page no.2 of the typed set of papers. To our dismay, we find that the representation has been sent by one Ms.Stella and she has claimed herself to be the P.A. of Traffic Ramaswamy. We deprecated the manner in which, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking for a direction to dispose of the said representation. Firstly, it is a false statement made by the petitioner, Traffic Ramaswamy, that he has sent a representation. It appears that the petitioner has scant respect for this Court, which is evident from the manner in which, he has moved the present writ petition. It is clear that the writ petition is a publicity oriented writ petition with no semblance of public interest. The manner in which, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition warrants deterrent action, but however, considering the petitioner's age, we refrain from doing so. 5. Hence for the above reasons, we dismiss the writ petition in W.P.No.12431 of 2011, with cost of Rs.10,000/-, payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within three weeks. 6. We have heard Mr.M.Palanimuthu, appearing in person, in W.P.No.12868 of 2011. 7. 5. Hence for the above reasons, we dismiss the writ petition in W.P.No.12431 of 2011, with cost of Rs.10,000/-, payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within three weeks. 6. We have heard Mr.M.Palanimuthu, appearing in person, in W.P.No.12868 of 2011. 7. As noticed above, the petitioner in W.P.No.12868 of 2011, has sought for a direction upon the respondents to reconstitute the Joint Drafting Committee of Lokpal Bill with due representation from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women. According to the petitioner, the Committee should have representation from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women and without such representation, the meetings conducted by the Committee are totally meaningless and incomplete. 8. We have heard Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, on the above submissions and perused the common counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 9. It is seen that the Joint Drafting Committee to draft the Lokpal Bill was constituted by the Government of India, constituting of five nominee, Ministers of the Government of India and five nominees from amongst the civilian public. The constitution of the said Committee has been notified, by publishing the same in the Gazette of the India, dated 08.04.2011. Further, it has been stated that the committee has completed three sittings on 16.04.2011, 02.05.2011 and 07.05.2011 and had discussions on all aspects and will be completing the work entrusted to it shortly. 10. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, the scope of judicial review in such matters is very limited and this Court will not embark on an exercise to review the decision taken by the Government in the manner of constitution of such Committees, more so, when no illegality has been pointed out. That apart, the Committee has already completed three sittings and at this stage, it would be against public interest to interdict the process. 11. Hence, we are of the definite opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference by way of this public interest writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.