Judgment : 1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayer :- "to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to take such appropriate action against the 3rd respondent on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 9.2.2009 within a time frame as may fixed by this court". 2. The case of the petitioner is that he worked as Assistant Professor at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, from 06.09.1999 and by an order dated 31.03.2008, he was transferred to Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem and now he is working as such. It is the further case of the petitioner that when he was working in Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital during 2006, he noticed indifferent attitude adopted by the doctors to patients including the 3rd respondent herein, resulting in serious consequences to the patients. This made the petitioner to give complaint to the 2nd respondent, who was the Acting Dean. However, he did not take any action against the Doctors, except threatening him to look after his duty. In such circumstances, the petitioner made a detailed complaint to the 1st respondent on 29.12.2007 about the irregularities committed by the doctors, so also about the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in taking action against the doctors. He also specifically made a complaint against the Acting Dean, who started acting against him in a vindictive manner and caused troubles to him in the duty. It is the further case of the petitioner that he received a communication from the Acting Dean on 11.09.2008 stating that he has been nominated as the Chairman of the Enquiry Committee to go into the complaint, along with two other Doctors of the same College, as members. Being aggrieved against the same, the petitioner moved this Court by way of filing W.P.No.29656 of 2008, in and by which this Court has granted an interim injunction on 16.12.2008 restraining the above said committee from holding enquiry. In the meantime, the petitioner went on medical leave from 23.09.2007 and when he joined duty on 10.02.2008, he was not permitted, but, by an order dated 13.02.2008, he was directed to undergo medical examination before the Medical Board, which consists of the 3rd respondent also. In order to take revenge on him, the leave was certified as "not justified". In the meantime, the petitioner went on medical leave from 23.09.2007 and when he joined duty on 10.02.2008, he was not permitted, but, by an order dated 13.02.2008, he was directed to undergo medical examination before the Medical Board, which consists of the 3rd respondent also. In order to take revenge on him, the leave was certified as "not justified". When the petitioner approached the Public Information Officer under RTI Act, asking how the 3rd respondent took part in the Medical Board, and why the leave was certified as not justified, he was furnished with the particulars, from which it came to his knowledge that necessary particulars for regularization of leave were not sent in time to the office of the 1st respondent, since the same may be required for the enquiry against the doctors. The 2nd respondent, at the instigation of the 3rd respondent did not sent his leave particulars to the 1st respondent. Therefore, the petitioner made a detailed complaint to the 1st respondent on 09.02.2009, requesting him to conduct free and fair enquiry against the respondents and to regularize his leave and to consider the report forwarded by the 3rd respondent as biased and false report. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since no action has been taken on the complaint of the petitioner dated 09.02.2009, a time limit may be fixed by this Court for passing orders on merits, on the complaint, mentioned supra. 4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent by stoutly opposing the relief sought by the petitioner on the ground that baseless allegations have been made, contended that the writ petition is not maintainable. However, he submitted that if the representation is going to be decided on merits, the 3rd respondent should be heard and he should be given an opportunity to putforth his submissions in person and also in writing. 5. Recording the above submission of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the complaint/representation of the petitioner dated 09.02.2009, on merits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in person. It is made clear that the 3rd respondent is entitled to make his verbal as well as written submissions within the time stipulated by the 1st respondent and only on considering the same, the 1st respondent is directed to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner on merits. No costs.