Judgment : Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.K.Guru for the Respondents. 2. According to the Petitioner, his Principal had purchased an immovable property, measuring an extent of 0.07.5 ares/extent of 18 cents comprised in S.F.No.254/7 as per UDR Sub-Division in S.No.254/7A in S.No.254/7B equivalent UDR S.No.254/7B measuring to an extent of 0.07.0 and in S.No.254/8 equivalent UDR S.No.254/8 measuring an extent of 0.11.5 of ayan nanja located at Madurai North District, Tamaraipatti Sub-Registry, Melur Taluk, Thergutheru Village No.36 for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.64,000/-on 28/7/2008 from one G. Selvam, S/o. Govindharajulu Naidu of Uthangudi Village, Madurai District through a registered sale deed dated 28/7/2008 vide document No.5811/2008 which was registered by the Second Respondent. As a matter of fact, the sale sale deed was executed, attested and witnessed in accordance with law. 3. The stand taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that on 28/7/2008, the Second Respondent had collected a sum of Rs.740/- towards registration fee, a sum of Rs.100/-as computerized fee and a sum of Rs.5,200/- as stamp duty for which a receipt has been issued. Since the original sale deed dated 28/7/2008 was not released by the Second Respondent to the Petitioner's Principal, he filed a Petition in W.P.(MD) No.1275 of 2010 on the file of this Court against the Second Respondent and two others, seeking a relief to quash the order dated 4/3/2009 passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), District Collectorate, Madurai District on 5/2/2010, this Court had allowed the Writ Petition with a direction to release the original sale deed No.5811/2008. The Second Respondent had returned the original sale deed with an endorsement for deficit stamp duty of Rs.72,936/-. 4. In regard to the recovery of alleged deficit stamp duty, subsequent to the order dated 5/2/2010 made in W.P.(MD) No.1275 of 2010, no steps were taken by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), District Collectorate, Madurai District for collecting the same in accordance with law or no notice and no enquiry was conducted for the past five years. Subsequently, in regard to the above survey numbers and other survey numbers located at Thergutheru Village which belong to the Petitioner's Principal, a Nagar was formed in the name and style of 'Subthagiri Nagar' for dividing into house plots. 5. Subsequently, in regard to the above survey numbers and other survey numbers located at Thergutheru Village which belong to the Petitioner's Principal, a Nagar was formed in the name and style of 'Subthagiri Nagar' for dividing into house plots. 5. The Petitioner gave a registered General Power of Attorney on 21/4/2011 by his Principal C.Selvaraj and two others, authorising him to sell the properties and also to initiate legal steps before the Court of Law on their behalf. In the said Power of Attorney, the properties of extent of 64 cents mentioned in the above survey numbers belongs to his Principal is also cited as item Nos.18, 19, 20. Based on the Power of Attorney document, he entered into two sale deeds separately dated 14/10/2014 with one S.Balasubramaniyan for Plot No.20 in S.No.254/7B and 254/8 for Plot No.21 in S.No.254/7A and 254/7B which belongs to his Principal M.Mookkandi for sale consideration of Rs.1,91,030/- and Rs.1,65,410/- respectively. 6. On 14/10/2014, at about 12.00 p.m., when the Petitioner presented the said two sale deeds for registration before the Second Respondent, according to the Petitioner, the Second Respondent had refused to accept the same without any valid reasons and in this regard, he requested him to furnish the written communication for rejection, however, the Second Respondent had not considered the Petitioner's request. 7. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's representation dated 16/10/2014 addressed to the First and Second Respondents are pending as on date and the same is not yet disposed off till date, this Court without going into the merits of the matter and also not expressing any opinion one way or the other in the subject matter in issue, based on a Fair Play and Equity and also in the interest of Justice, directs the Second Respondent to look into the representation of the Petitioner dated 16/10/2014 in a Fair, Objective and Dispassionate manner and to dispose of the matter on merits by passing a reasoned, valid and speaking order (of course after providing 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. 8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.