JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. S. Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to initiate necessary action against the respondents 4 to 6 based on the representation dated 28.02.2015. 4. The following facts would disclose that this is a classic case of abuse of process of this Court as well as misconstruing the right of the petitioner. The very same petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.5451 of 2014 seeking for a Mandamus directing the respondents therein not to evict him from his dwelling house, situated in Survey No.229/1A, Avaniyapuram Village, No.4, Sub Registrar Office, Madurai South Taluk, comprising 15 cents without following the due process of law. 5. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 17.09.2014, by recording the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader that due process of law would be followed while proceedings against the petitioner for eviction, are initiated. 6. Thereafter, an order came to be passed on 27.02.2015, by the Tahsildar, Madurai South, who is arrayed as the fifth respondent in his individual capacity in this writ petition, stating that the petitioner has to vacate and hand over the vacant possession within two days failing which the Government will take appropriate action of removal of encroachment on 02.03.2015. 7. According to the petitioner, the said proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, dated 27.02.2015, is the cause of action to file this writ petition to take action departmentally against the respondents 4 to 6 herein. 8. I failed to understand as to how the petitioner can file such a writ petition to take departmental action against the respondents 4 to 6, merely because, notice has been issued by the Tahsildar on 27.02.2015, calling upon the petitioner to remove the encroachment. Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved against such proceedings, he has to challenge the same in the manner known to law and without doing so, filing of this writ petition is nothing but, to threat the officials from discharging their official duties. Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved against such proceedings, he has to challenge the same in the manner known to law and without doing so, filing of this writ petition is nothing but, to threat the officials from discharging their official duties. I find that the petitioner is not properly advised before filing this writ petition. Hence, I do not find any valid or justifiable ground even to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.