Judgment :- 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the notice dated 10.03.2011 issued by the petitioner within a reasonable time. 2. According to the petitioner, his father Late Rathnavel is Kartha of the ancestral properties and he was in management and looked after the day to day affairs of the entire property. The father of the petitioner entered into a lease agreement with petitioners brother R.Gnanavel on 03.08.2005 for certain properties mentioned in the lease agreement. The lease agreement was entered between the father and the brother of the petitioner. The lease was for five years. In the lease agreement, the brother of the petitioner was permitted to run the Nursery School. 3. In the meantime, the brother of the petitioner died. Whileso, the father of the petitioner also entered into another agreement on 01.12.2008 with the wife of the brother. The lease agreement was on the same line as that of the earlier lease agreement. 4. The petitioners father, after executing the said lease agreement dated 01.12.2008, died subsequently. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a partition suit in O.S.No.169 of 2006 before the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, the said suit is still pending. 5. In these circumstances, the petitioner sent a notice, through his counsel, to his brothers wife as well as to the respondents 1 and 2, calling upon them to cancel the affiliation granted to the educational institution run by the wife of the brother of the petitioner. 6. Now, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the lawyers notice dated 10.03.2011,within a reasonable time. 7. Heard both sides. 8. I am not able to understand as to how the petitioner could ask for a direction to the respondents to pass orders on the lawyers notice, when he did not make any representation on his own. Furthermore, the brothers wife, against whom the relief is sought for, is not even made as a party, and only subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition, with much laxity, the petitioner has moved miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1 of 2011 seeking to implead her as a party/respondent. The said petition cannot be considered now having regard to the conduct of the petitioner as pointed out above. The said petition cannot be considered now having regard to the conduct of the petitioner as pointed out above. More importantly, the petitioner has filed a partition suit before the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, and the same is also pending. Therefore, he can very well work out his remedy in the said suit, instead of seeking for a blanket direction to the department-authorities to pass orders on the lawyers notice. 9. In my view, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly, it is dismissed. No Costs. M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.