Judgment : 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to take necessary legal action against the fifth respondent based on the petitioner's representation dated 10.11.2012. 2. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent had destroyed his crops in the year 1996 and there are other illegalities said to have been committed by the fifth respondent for which the petitioner has initiated criminal action against the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent subsequently contested in the election to the post of President of Ramakrishnapuram Village Panchayat, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District and he was declared as elected. The petitioner would state that the fifth respondent suppressed the conviction in the criminal case and therefore, his nomination itself should have been rejected. Therefore, with these allegations, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. It is seen that with an identical prayer the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.11850 of 2011 and the Hon'ble Division of this Court, by order dated 14.10.2011, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the writ petition is not appropriate remedy and had interfered at that stage since the election process has commenced. Thereafter, the petitioner has been making representations and he is now sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to consider the representation. 4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the election of the fifth respondent as President, then the petitioner ought to have challenged the election as provided under Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act and Rules framed thereunder. If the petitioner has any grievance against the manner in which the fifth respondent has been elected as President of the Panchayat, then he has to approach the second respondent by way of representation. The petitioner submitted the present representation making certain allegations regarding the validity of the election of the fifth respondent in the election based on which this writ petition has been filed. However, this cannot be decided by the second respondent and no useful purpose will be served by directing the representation to be considered by the respondent. If at all the petitioner has got any grievance, he has to challenge the selection of the fifth respondent in the manner as provided under the law. 5. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.