JUDGMENT M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents. 2. According to the Petitioner, S. No. 259/2 is a patta land and the patta was issued in his favour. Later, the patta was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul. Thereafter, the Petitioner had filed a Writ Appeal in W.A. (MD) No. 487 of 2013 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2013 before this Court and they are pending as on date. In the said Writ Appeal, status-quo was ordered. The Petitioner came to know that in S. Nos. 259/1, 259/2, 259/3, a building was constructed without prior permission from the Government authorities. As such, he approached the Commissioner, Sanarpatti Village about the illegal construction but the said Commissioner was not ready to accept his complaint. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he applied under Right to Information Act on 27/8/2013, questioning the Government authorities as to who has constructed the complex in his patta land and what is the tender and on what date it was issued. He has given a reply stating that there was no construction in his patta land. However, in S. No. 259/2 without any approval or permission from the authorities concerned, construction was very fastly moving. He issued a legal notice to Sanarpatti Assistant Commissioner not to violate the order of this Court and also further process of construction to be stopped. However, the said Commissioner made a reply that there was no fund allotted to construct the aforesaid building in the disputed land and also the Commissioner denied that there was no construction and no building in that particular S. No. 259/2, contrary to the advertisement on 15/2/2014 in the local newspaper. 4. The Petitioner projected an application under Right to Information Act and he obtained a reply from the East Tahsildar in his letter in Na. Ka. No. 3694 dated 26/9/2014. In short, the activities of the Commissioner, Sanarpatti is an illegal one, as contended by the Petitioner. Further more, on 4/4/2014, the Second Respondent/Director of Panchayats, Village Panchayat and Panchayatraj Department, Chennai 15, issued a communication to the Third Respondent/Assistant Director of Panchayats, Village Panchayat and Panchayatraj Office, Dindigul District requesting him to take necessary action based on his complaint, however, no action was taken by the authorities. Further more, on 4/4/2014, the Second Respondent/Director of Panchayats, Village Panchayat and Panchayatraj Department, Chennai 15, issued a communication to the Third Respondent/Assistant Director of Panchayats, Village Panchayat and Panchayatraj Office, Dindigul District requesting him to take necessary action based on his complaint, however, no action was taken by the authorities. Consequently, the Petitioner made a representation to the District Collector, Commissioner and other Government authorities. He also sent an application to the Respondents on 14/2/2014 and 9/10/2014 through Registered Post and the same was received by them, however, no action was taken by them. 5. The prayer of the Writ Petitioner is limited in nature, viz. to consider his representations dated 14/2/2014 and 9/10/2014 by the Respondents and in this regard, he has sought for passing of an order by this Court to that effect. Taking note of the fact that the Petitioner's prayer is only to consider his representations dated 14/2/2014 and 9/10/2014, this Court is of the considered view that the concerned respondents are directed to consider his representations in a fair, just, objective and dispassionate manner (of course, after providing necessary opportunities to the Petitioner and others concerned by adhering to the principles of natural justice) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.