Judgment :- 1. Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to issue No objection certificate in respect of 2,280 sq.ft in in plot no.28 comprised in S.No.323/1B, No.155, Sholinganallur situated in CMDA approved layout in PPO/LO 122 of 1988. 2. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the plot measuring 2280 in plot no.28 comprised in S.No.323/1B, No.155, Sholinganallur village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram district. The petitioner applied for planning permission to the Panchayat Union for development of Plot 28 in Sholinganallur Town Panchayat for building planning approval. 3. That the Sholinganallur Town Panchayat directed the petitioner to get No Objection Certificate from the respondent. The petitioner has not made Town Panchayat as party to accept or controvert this averment. It is also not understood how Sholinganallur Town Panchayat could issue such direction to the petitioner to approach Chairman, Tamilnadu Housing Board, who is neither a competent authority nor a person to issue No Objection Certificate, as the jurisdiction if any is with Tamilnadu Housing Board as a Body and not its Chairman. 4. Not only this, the petitioner has also submitted that officials of Tamil Nadu Housing Board had directed the petitioner to approach this court, to seek direction for issuance of No Objection Certificate. The petitioner has not named any officials who directed him to approach this court. This allegation is very serious, it is the duty of the respondent to look into this allegation, and in case the officials of Tamilnadu Housing Board are involved, in this racket directing the persons to file such cases in the High court should immediately put to an end such practice as the officials working in the department have to perform their duty as per law and not wait for direction from the court as projected by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has also not placed on record any application, though averment is made that payment of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as search fee was paid but no such receipt has been placed on record. It is pleaded that receipt will be produced as and when found. 6. This submission again is misconceived as writ petition cannot be filed in anticipation of documents to be filed on latter date. It is pleaded that receipt will be produced as and when found. 6. This submission again is misconceived as writ petition cannot be filed in anticipation of documents to be filed on latter date. It was the duty of the petitioner to have approached the Tamilnadu Housing Board for duplicate receipt. The petitioner before approaching the High Court is bound to file all the papers and plead requisite pleading, showing a legal right and corresponding legal duty of the respondents. The petitioner is also required to place on record the proof of filing of writ of demand, so as to enable this court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue necessary direction. The pleadings in this writ, does not show infringement of any legal right or legal obligation of the Chairman. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board is also not made a party. There is no document showing the filing of writ of demand with the respondent. 7. Keeping in view the facts that the petitioner failed to implead the necessary parties (i.e) Sholinganallur Town Panchayat and Tamil Nadu Housing Board as also failed to produce on record any documents showing the writ of demand, before approaching this court, the writ petition as prayed is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.