Judgment 1. Petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.01.2011, and direct the respondents to take steps on preventing the respondents 5 to 8 from converting agricultural land in S.No.51,52 and 53 situated in Eripakkam, Nettappallam Commune, Pondicherry into House Sites. 2. The petitioner is the owner of agricultural lands at Eripakkam Village, Nettappakkam Commune, and cultivating possession of land falling in S.Nos.51,52 and 53 as tenant. 3. The 5th respondent landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner, which was allowed by the learned Revenue Divisional Officer. 4. On revision in this court, the order of eviction stands set aside, and the case has been remanded back to the RDO for reconsideration. 5. It is the submission of the petitioner, that 6th respondent is attempting to convert the said agricultural land into house sites without permission. 6. The petitioner, filed representation with the 2nd respondent, for taking action against the respondents. The petitioner was informed that necessary instructions has been issued to the Commissioner of Nettappakkam Commune Panchayat not to issue No Objection Certificate, to newly sub divided unauthorized layouts. The case of the petitioner is that, inspite of the instructions land owner has sold some portions of land to the 6th respondent. 7. Petitioner being aggrieved by the attempts of the respondents in converting the agricultural land into housing plots filed representation with 2nd respondent. 8. On failure of the respondents to take decision on the representation, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13506/2010, which was disposed of by this court on 30.06.2010. 9. The operative portion of the order reads as under: "5.) In the light of the limited relief sought by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and taking note of the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.06.2010 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and on merits, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties to the proceedings, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to send a copy of this order along with the representation to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is directed to send a copy of this order along with the representation to the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. In pursuance to the direction issued by this court, the Puducherry Planning Authority passed an order on 17.08.2010, which reads as under: No.6461/PPA/Z(NCPT/Petition/2009/8381 PUDUCHERRY PLANNING AUTHORITY JAWAHAR NAGAR BOOMIANPET PUDUCHERRY PROCEEDINGS OF THE HEARING HELD IN THE CHAMBER OF THE MEMBER SECRETARY, PUDUCHERRY PLANNING AUTHORITY AT 4.00 P.M. ON 17.08.2010. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in W.P.No.13506 of 2010 dated 30.06.2010, this Authority had sent notice to both the parties by Registered Post with Acknowlegement calling for appearance before this Authority for hearing at 04.00 P.M on 09.08.2010. Notice served to the petitioner Thiru N.Harikrishnan, he appeared in person and filed his statement. With respect to the respondents acknowledgement of receipt of notice was awaited. Therefore the hearing was adjourned to 17.08.2010 and fresh notices were sent to the respondents. The respondents 4,5,6 and 7 have not appeared for the hearing today i.e. On 17.08.2010 and therefore as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court the following order is passed on the representation of the Petitioner dated 01.06.2010. 1) The respondents 4,5,6 and 7 should not sub divide the land bearing R.S.No.51,52,53 at Eripakkam, Puducherry into plots without getting the permission from the Puducherry Planning Authority. 2) The petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedies regarding possession and ownership of the above mentioned property as per law." Even though the necessary relief as claimed by the petitioner stands granted to him, the petitioner has again filed a representation on the apprehension that the respondents in violation of order referred to above will take steps to cut out plots. 10. This petition is totally misconceived. Once an order has been passed in favour of the petitioner, it cannot be imagined that the respondents would violate the law. In case, if any action is taken violative of the specific orders passed by Member Secretary, the petitioner can challenge it. Merely because that the petitioner has some apprehension, that the order is likely to be violated, he cannot approach this court again and again, for a direction to decide the representation. The petition is nothing but misuse of the process of the court. 11. No merits. Dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.