Judgment S. Manimumar,J. 1. Mr.M.Alagathevan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 2. Seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, the petitioner has prayed to quash the proceedings in Rc.No.20/2012/A1, dated 27.08.2014, by which, the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment, on the road. 3. The impugned proceeding reads as follows; “TAMIL” 4. Reading of the impugned notice shows that pursuant to the directions issued in a writ petition in W.P.(MD.No.12518 of 2014, filed by one Leelavathi, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, National Highways Department, Sivagangai District, has issued the impugned notice. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the order made in W.P.(MD).No.12518 of 2014, dated 01.08.2014, which reads as follows; 1. "Heard Mr.Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.M.Alagadevan, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner, dated 12.05.2014, is directed to be disposed of, by the third respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the third respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 12.05.2014, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, and the other interested persons, if any. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated12.05.2014, to the third respondent, along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear, that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 5. The Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 6. However, it is made clear, that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 5. The Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 6. Material on record further discloses that the petitioner has also filed a suit in O.S.No.84 of 2010, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sivagangai, against Sivagangai Devasthanam, represented by its Manager, for a permanent injunction. 7. As stated supra, impugned order has been issued, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.12518 of 2014. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner ought to have submitted his explanation to the authority. Writ of Certiorari cannot be issued to the authorities when they are implementing the orders of this Court. That would be amounting to reviewing the decision made earlier. It is always open to the petitioner to approach the authority by submitting a reply. 8. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.