Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 14.07.2008. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 14.07.2008, to the first respondent, to take back the petitioner in service, with all monetary benefits, in view of his honorable acquittal, by the learned Judicial Magistrate in C.C.No. 181 of 2003, dated 05.09.2008, by setting aside the order of dismissal, passed by the 3rd respondent, on 05.09.2002, and confirmed by the second respondent, on 20.12.2002. However, no order has been passed by the first respondent on the said representation, till date . 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, reads as follows: "7.With regard to averments made in Para No.06 & 07, it is a fact that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.07.2008, addressed to DG/CISF Delhi, requesting for setting aside the Final Order dated 05.09.2002, passed by the Commandant, CISF Unit NLC Neyveli and order passed by DIG, CISF Unit NLC Neyveli on appeal and to issue direction to the disciplinary authority to reinstate him in service in the light of the judgment order dated 05.05.2008 passed by the District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli in CC No.181/2003 dated 05.05.2008. Upon examination of the representation dated 14.07.2008, submitted by the petitioner, CISF Hqrs New Delhi had issued a direction to dispose off the same by the concerned Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, his representation dated 14.07.2008 was considered by the Disciplinary authority and was found devoid of merit and hence was rejected vide Order No. No.V-15014/CISF/NLC/Appeal/RB/2008/12530 dated 13.11.2008. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that his representation dated 14.07.2008 is not disposed is false." 4. It has been stated, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, that the representation of the petitioner, dated 14.07.2008, had been considered by the disciplinary authority and it had been rejected, vide order, dated 13.11.2008. 5. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition, filed by the petitioner, is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed, as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.