JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to consider his representation dated 23.11.2012, 30.11.2012 and 10.12.2012 respectively. 2. According to the Petitioner, he is doing Government Contract works in Tharmapuri, Krishnagiri and Salem Districts. He has a vast experience in doing contract works with the Government. Also that, he had a contract work for maintaining and renovating "Anaikattu", Check Dams, Canals, Channels, etc., 3. The Petitioner's stand is that the First and Second Respondents gave a contract work for renovating of "Pothinampallam Dam" to the Fifth Respondent, worth about Rs.2.06 crores (Rupees Two Crore and Six Lakhs only). As a matter of fact, the Fifth Respondent has no experience to do the contract work and added further, the Pappi Retty Patty Police had registered a FIR in Crime No.559/2012 for theft of sand and he was released on Anticipatory Bail by the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri. 4. The Petitioner issued a lawyer notice, dated 23.11.2012 and 30.11.2012 to the Respondents 1 to 4, who received the same on 26.11.2012 and 03.12.2012 respectively. Further, they had not taken any action against the Fifth Respondent and they had not conducted any inequiry in respect of his Advocate's Notice issued to the Respondents 1 to 4. There upon, the Petitioner, on 10.12.2012 in person went to the District Collector Office and gave a written complaint to the District Collector Office at Dharmapuri District and the officials of the Fourth Respondent/District Collector Office, received the said complaint from him. But they had not given acknowledgement for the receipt of his complaint. 5. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that the Fourth Respondent/District Collector, Dharmapuri, has a supervisory power to regulate the Contract works of the Government and to cancel the contract given to the Fifth Respondent. Continuing further, he made a request not to disburse the tender amount till the conduct of proper inquiry for the work done by the Fifth Respondent. That apart, the plea of the Petitioner is that the Respondents 1 and 2 had wantonly gave a tender in favour of the Fifth Respondent without considering any merits and demerits. In effect, the contention of the Petitioner is that the Fifth Respondent is not a competent contractor to renovate and maintain the "Pothinampallam Dam". 6. That apart, the plea of the Petitioner is that the Respondents 1 and 2 had wantonly gave a tender in favour of the Fifth Respondent without considering any merits and demerits. In effect, the contention of the Petitioner is that the Fifth Respondent is not a competent contractor to renovate and maintain the "Pothinampallam Dam". 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the Respondents 1 to 4 had not taken proper action in the matter in issue, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing the present Writ of Mandamus seeking for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to consider the Petitioner's representation, dated 23.11.2012, 30.11.2012 and 10.12.2012 respectively. 7. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Special Government Pleader that the Petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition, based on the simple reason that he has not participated in the tender process and also that, the Second Respondent / Executive Engineer, Mal Pennaiarau Vadinila Vattam, Public Works Department, Thiruvannamalai, had issued a reply to the Petitioner's Advocate Notice and in the absence of any enforceable right on the part of the Petitioner, he is not entitled to project the present Writ Petition before this Court. Therefore, the plea of the Respondents 1 to 4 is that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is per se not maintainable in law. 8. At this stage, this Court on going through the representation of the Petitioner, dated 10.12.2012 (enclosed in the typed set of papers) is of the considered view that the Petitioner has stated that the Fifth Respondent has no prior experience and also that he does not know the maintenance works and added further, he has no experience to his credit and also that he is politically influenced and with money power, he has obtained the present contract in question. 9. Furthermore, the Petitioner in his representation dated 10.12.2012, at the outset has also stated that he has a long experience in contract work and also maintenance work of the Dam. Moreover, he has taken a contract for maintenance work of "Mel Pennai River" at Dharmapuri. 10. 9. Furthermore, the Petitioner in his representation dated 10.12.2012, at the outset has also stated that he has a long experience in contract work and also maintenance work of the Dam. Moreover, he has taken a contract for maintenance work of "Mel Pennai River" at Dharmapuri. 10. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of respective contentions and in view of the fact that the Petitioner is also a contractor, who has projected the present writ petition against the Fifth Respondent [another contractor], (obviously, with an ulterior motive) and in any event, when he has not participated in the tender contract awarded to the Fifth Respondent and at a later point of time, he is not entitled to file the present Writ Petition, in the considered opinion of this Court, based on the simple reason that he has no legally vested/accrued enforceable right, in his favour. Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition fails. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.