ORDER 1. This is a strange case of a Hotel Industry (Ceebros Hotels (P) Ltd.,) filing writ petitions one after another to direct the Director General of Defense Estate, to increase the Floor Space Index (hereinafter referred to as “FSI”) from 0.5 to 1.5, obtaining positive order once and when it was taken up in appeal, withdrawing the very writ petition, filing representations thereafter followed by writ petition, which was dismissed and thereafter approaching the Central Government with a fresh representation and having found no follow up action, filing another writ petition and during the currency of the writ petition, approaching the Defense Secretary, through a member of Parliament, and when it was found that even the VIP Reference was not giving desired result, rushing to this Court to take up the writ petition and to direct the Central Government to dispose of the representation. A Brief Backdrop: 2. The petitioner is the owner of 1.40 acres of property at Door No. 1, Officers Line, G.S.T. Road, Pallavaram, Chennai. The petitioner with a view to construct a Hotel, submitted an application for planning permission. The second respondent granted approval by proceedings dated 18.2.2009 with 0.5 F.S.I. The petitioner submitted a representation for relaxation of Regulation regarding F.S.I. The writ petition filed for a direction to consider the representation was dismissed by this Court by order dated 26.6.2012 in W.P. No. 644 of 2012. The petitioner thereafter approached the first respondent. The first respondent called the petitioner for a meeting on 23.8.2012. The petitioner attended the meeting and agreed to make own arrangements for providing the infrastructure without causing financial burden on the Local Cantonment Board. The petitioner now wanted a direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of the representation dated 5.9.2012. 3. The Defense Estate Officer, Chennai in his counter affidavit narrated the prior proceedings, According to the second respondent, the earlier decision regarding FSI still subsists and as such there is no question of consideration of another representation. The Core Submissions: 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the first respondent to consider the request for increasing the FSI from 0.5 to 1.5. The first respondent has already initiated action. The dismissal of the earlier application would not prevent the petitioner from approaching this Court for an early disposal of the representation. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the first respondent to consider the request for increasing the FSI from 0.5 to 1.5. The first respondent has already initiated action. The dismissal of the earlier application would not prevent the petitioner from approaching this Court for an early disposal of the representation. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that under Section 57 of the Cantonment Act 2006, the Central Government has got review jurisdiction. According to him, the representation is in the nature of a review petition and as such the Central Government should be directed to dispose of it on merits. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the earlier Rule regarding 0.5 FSI still holds good. So long as there is no change of Regulation, the Government cannot be directed to consider the representation for increasing the FSI. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has been giving such representations without any change of circumstances. He would further submit that the representation submitted on 5.9.2012 cannot be considered as a review petition in respect of the earlier representation dated 3.9.2010 which was the subject matter in W.P. No. 644 of 2012. The learned counsel by placing reliance on the letter sent by a Member of Parliament to the Defense Secretary contended that the petitioner has been resorting to parallel proceedings even during the pendency of this writ petition and such a person does not deserve an equitable order from this Court. Discussion: 6. This writ petition is a classical example as to how litigants waste the valuable time of the Court with prayer similar to one which has already been rejected on merits and without any change of circumstances thereafter to convene another round of litigation. 7. The petitioner initially submitted an application for relaxation of the Regulation regarding FSI. This Court by order dated 20.2.2003 in W.P. No. 5604 of 2003 directed the Ministry of Defence to consider and dispose of the representation on merits. 8. The Ministry of Defence pursuant to the order dated 20.2.2003 considered the representation and it was rejected by order dated 19.1.2004. 9. The order dated 19.1.2004 was challenged before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 5815 of 2004. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 7.10.2005 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 10. 8. The Ministry of Defence pursuant to the order dated 20.2.2003 considered the representation and it was rejected by order dated 19.1.2004. 9. The order dated 19.1.2004 was challenged before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 5815 of 2004. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 7.10.2005 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 10. The order dated 19.1.2004 was once again challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 37467 of 2005. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 17.6.2006. 11. The order dated 17.6.2006 was challenged by the Government by way of an intra court appeal in W.A. No. 1054 of 2006. The petitioner during the course of hearing the writ appeal agreed to recall the order dated 17.6.2006, in W.P. No. 37467 of 2005 with liberty to file an application for increase in FSI. The writ appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 27.7.2007 with liberty. 12. The petitioner filed application dated 20.8.2007 with a request to grant 1.5 FSI. The application was rejected on merits by order dated 19.9.2007. 13. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for building permit. Since it was nothing but the very same application rejected earlier, it was returned by the Cantonment Board by order dated 16.10.2007. 14. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 19.9.2007 before the third respondent. The appeal was rejected on 30.7.2008. 15. The petitioner without challenging the said order submitted another representation dated 3 November 2010 followed by a writ petition to consider the representation. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 26.6.2012 in W.P. No. 644 of 2012. 16. In the meantime the Central Government received representation from peoples representatives and individuals relating to land issues involving Cantonment Board. The petitioner was also invited for a meeting on 23.8.2012. Thereafter another representation dated 5.9.2012 was given. 17. Thereafter the petitioner filed a representation before the first respondent dated 5.9.2012. The present prayer is to consider the said representation. 18. The core question is whether a writ of mandamus would lie to consider one more representation submitted after the rejection of earlier representations, and that too without any change of circumstances. 19. There is no dispute that as per the existing building bye laws, and Floor Space Index Restrictions, the maximum permissible FSI area at St. Thomas Mount is only 0.5. 19. There is no dispute that as per the existing building bye laws, and Floor Space Index Restrictions, the maximum permissible FSI area at St. Thomas Mount is only 0.5. The permissible number of floors is ground plus two with a maximum height of 18 metres. 20. The site owned by the petitioner is located just opposite to the Chennai Airport. The series of representations, given by the petitioner were all rejected on the basis of the prevailing Regulations. The rejection order was confirmed by the appellate authority. The writ petition preferred for a direction to consider the representation was dismissed by this Court taking into account the Rule position. 21. The application submitted by the petitioner for planning permit was partly allowed by order dated 18.2.2009 permitting to put up a building within 0.5 FSI limit. The said order limiting the FSI to 0.5 is not challenged. 22. The present representation cannot be treated as one made under Section 57 of the Cantonment Act 2006. The representation is nothing but a fresh one after considerable years. The meeting convened by the defense Minister would not give a fresh cause of action to re-agitate the concluded matters. Even according to the petitioner, the Rule regarding maximum FSI remain the same. The petitioner would be justified in giving a fresh representation in case there was a change of circumstance. In the absence of such change of circumstances, there is no question of directing the Central Government to consider the fresh representation. 23. The Managing Director of the petitioner company has been using all his contacts to compel the Defense Ministry to increase the FSI and the same is evident from the letter produced by the learned counsel for respondents. The petitioner after submitting a representation on 5.9.2012 to the Secretary, Ministry of Defense , approached the Member of Parliament to process the representation and grant relaxation. The letter dated 9.11.2012 reads thus: “9.11.2012 My dear Shri Shashi Kant Sharma Ji, Namaste. Shri C. Subba Reddy, my class-mate and friend with good background and reputation. He got private land of 1.5 acres in Chennai Cantonment area, and applied for relaxation of FSI from 0.5 to 1.5 to build a Hotel. FSI relaxation was granted earlier in two similar cases in the same area. The same rule to be adopted and the relaxation be granted to CEEBROS HOTELS PRIVATE LTD., Chennai. He got private land of 1.5 acres in Chennai Cantonment area, and applied for relaxation of FSI from 0.5 to 1.5 to build a Hotel. FSI relaxation was granted earlier in two similar cases in the same area. The same rule to be adopted and the relaxation be granted to CEEBROS HOTELS PRIVATE LTD., Chennai. Detailed correspondence is enclosed. Please do justice in this case. Thanking you, With regards Yours Sincerely (Chinta Mohan)” 24. It is only after exerting pressure through the sitting member of Parliament from Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner has approached this Court on 16.10.2012 by filing this writ petition. 25. The petitioner must prove a legal right and a corresponding duty on the part of the authorities to seek a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus would not be a remedy to create a right. Relaxation is not a matter of right. The Government is not bound to relax the FSI from 0.5 to 1.5. Therefore there is no question of issuing a mandamus to consider the representation submitted for the purpose of relaxing the regulation regarding maximum FSI. Writ of mandamus – Not for creation of legal right: 26. The Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development Investment Corpn. v. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation AIR 2013 SC 1241 : (2013) 5 SCC 470 indicated the pre-requisites for issuing a writ of mandamus in the following words: “21. ......generally the court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to enforce the contractual obligation. The primary purpose of a writ of mandamus, is to protect and establish rights and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law. It is designed to promote justice (ex debito justiceiae). The grant or refusal of the writ is at the discretion of the court. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established. While dealing with a writ petition, the Court must exercise discretion, taking into consideration a wide variety of circumstances, inter alia, the facts of the case, the exigency that warrants such exercise of discretion, the consequences of grant or refusal of the writ, and the nature and extent of injury that is likely to ensue by such grant or refusal.” 27. So long as it is clear that the Rules remain the same including FSI, it is not possible to direct the first respondent to consider the latest representation. The issues concluded cannot be reopened by way of representations. Conclusion: 28. The petitioner has no legal right to direct the first respondent to grant relaxation. The representation earlier given were all rejected. Even the writ petition to consider one such representation was dismissed. The very same situation is prevalent even now. In view of the rejection of earlier representations on merits and taking into account the Building Laws and absence of revision or amendment of such laws, fresh representation for the very same relief is not maintainable. 29. In the upshot, I dismiss the writ petition. Consequently the connected MP is closed. No costs. Petition dismissed.