ORDER D.H. Waghela, C.J. 1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint a Chairperson to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal (CAT), so as to ensure that proceedings of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal are held on a regular basis. Notices were ordered to be issued on 22.09.2012 in the present petition and thereafter, the hearing has been adjourned from time to time with the stock reply of learned counsel for the Union of India that needful is being done for earlier appointment of Chairperson of the tribunal. At long last, the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology has filed statement of objections on 06.09.2013 with verification by Sri Adarsh Kumar, Deputy Director, Department of Electronics and Information Technology. 2. It is stated inter alia in the statement of objections, submitted as aforesaid, that the post of Chairperson of CAT is vacant with effect from 01.07.2011 due to the retirement of Justice Rajesh Tandon. Although the process for filling up of the post had been initiated well in advance by the respondent in November 2010 and an advertisement was published on 16.02.2011 calling applications for the "post of Chairperson of CAT", the first meeting of the Screening/Selection Committee was convened on 20.07.2011 under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Justice Altamas Kabir, Judge, Supreme Court of India and the committee had decided to consider 13 applications received by the due date. Thereafter, the committee had recommended and forwarded two names for the post and the empanelled candidates were also interviewed by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (MCIT) on 18.08.2011. On 18.08.2011, MCIT opined, resolved and minted: "for selection of Cyber Appellate Tribunal Chairman, we may start the process of identifying the fresh candidate through a wider consultation process". The respondent has sent a copy of the minutes of the selection committee to Secretary General, Supreme Court of India for placing the minutes of the selection committee and the remarks minted by MCIT before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. Thereafter, the selection committee held a meeting on 14.12.2011 and after some deliberation, the respondent and the committee are stated to have exchanged a number of communications for early appointment of Chairperson of CAT, but it is still to be materialised. 3. Thereafter, the selection committee held a meeting on 14.12.2011 and after some deliberation, the respondent and the committee are stated to have exchanged a number of communications for early appointment of Chairperson of CAT, but it is still to be materialised. 3. It is also stated for the Union of India that they have written a letter dated 16.02.2012 and referred the matter to the Department of Legal Affairs for entrusting the additional charge of the post of Chairman to one Hon'ble retired justice, but it did not appear to be legally in order. It is further stated that the action for appointment of Chairperson, CAT is under process and laborious efforts are made for an earlier appointment, for speedy disposal of cases. It is stated that the matter is pending between the respondent and selection committee headed by Hon'ble Justice of the Supreme Court. It is further clearly stated that there is no omission or commission on the part of the respondent in the matter of appointment of Chairperson of CAT. The respondent has relied upon recent letters dated 03.04.2013 and 10.04.2013, as also 24.07.2013 for convening the selection committee to appoint the Chairperson. At the end, a prayer is made by the respondent to dismiss the petition with cost, in view of the facts as aforesaid. 4. A letter dated 06.12.2012 is received in the office of the Chief Justice of this Court from Sri Na. Vijayashankar and it is directed on 13.12.2012 by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice to be placed in the present pending case. It is inter alia stated in that letter that a party had approached the CAT on an appeal, but in absence of Chairperson to CAT since June 2011, the appeal is not being heard. It is stated that, at the time the appeal was filed in January 2012, Hon'ble Justice S.K. Krishnan, Former Judge of the Madras High Court had been appointed as "Member Judicial" to the CAT and had assumed charge in December 2011. It was expected that he would be automatically designated as the Chairperson and would activate the CAT. However, for reasons unknown, Justice Krishnan was never designated as Chairperson of CAT and even he relinquished his office in November 2012, after attaining superannuation. It was expected that he would be automatically designated as the Chairperson and would activate the CAT. However, for reasons unknown, Justice Krishnan was never designated as Chairperson of CAT and even he relinquished his office in November 2012, after attaining superannuation. In the meantime, the Government has appointed a "Member Technical", but even he could not hold hearings since ITA 2008 prescribes that hearing are to be conducted only by the Chairperson. Thus, according to the letter, the Government of India has failed to take necessary administrative action to make the CAT operational. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Chaitanya S.G. strongly objected to any further adjournment on the basis of the same pleas repeated at every hearing by learned standing counsel for the respondent. He further submitted that the relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Section 49 only requires that "the selection of Chairperson and Members of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal shall be made by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India". It was on that basis argued that the selection process has to be initiated by the Central Government and the selection may have to be finalised in consultation with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. He submitted that, as the objections and letters of the Central Government indicate, the Ministry concerned has hardly done any exercise except periodically writing letters to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, with the result that the CAT is dysfunctional since June 2011. Learned counsel also submitted that the averments made in the statement of objections of the respondent clearly show lack of bona fide and diligence on the part of the authorities in taking up the matter of appointment in right earnest. He therefore requested that a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued to fill up the post within a specific time limit. 6. Learned counsel Mr. M. Ravinson appearing for the respondent, on instruction, submitted that the respondent will take all the necessary steps for filling up the post of Chairperson within the outer limit of six months from today and efforts shall be made to appoint the Chairperson even earlier than the expiry of that period, in public interest. Upon that statement being made and recorded, no direction is required to be issued. Upon that statement being made and recorded, no direction is required to be issued. However, it is expected that after the lapse of more than two years, the respondent shall take up the matter of appointment of Chairperson to the CAT with a sense of urgency and do the needful as expeditiously as practicable, also having regard to the provisions of Section 53 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. With these observations, the petition stands disposed with no order as to cost.