JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition is filed praying for a Mandamus to direct the second respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 08.10.2014 by deleting the classification as Government surplus with respect to Survey No.74/3 of Enmanamkondan Village of Ramanatha puram Taluk measuring an extent of 5.33.5 hectares in respect of the land measuring 1.16 acre is concerned. 2. Mr. S. Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that wayback in the year 1968, the lands in question was transferred through the settlement deed to this petitioner. But, unfortunately, the lands in question was classified as Government surplus land. When he came to know this fact, immediately, he applied for an adangal in the year 2003. Thereafter, he has come forward with this Writ Petition for the relief stated earlier. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that initially, the petitioner has slept over the issue for more than three and half decades. Even after applying the adangal in the year, again he has slept over the issue for another one and half decade. He has not taken any steps to rectify the error nor alter the property in his name. Therefore, what cannot be considered that cannot be directed to be considered by the respondents under the guise of Mandamus at this length point of time. According to him, this Writ Petition is not at all maintainable. 6. Heard both sides. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that this Writ Petition is not maintainable. Normally, this Court considers the representation of the applicant. But, some times, such direction is being misused and abused. Even after coming to know the fact in the year 2003, he has not taken any steps to get the things right. But, simply, sending a representation to the authorities, he wants to set the clock back, which is impermissible in law. At this juncture, it is the fittest case where the judgment in M. Ingaci Vs. Even after coming to know the fact in the year 2003, he has not taken any steps to get the things right. But, simply, sending a representation to the authorities, he wants to set the clock back, which is impermissible in law. At this juncture, it is the fittest case where the judgment in M. Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai & Others, reported in 2010-2-L.W.785, would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein, it has been observed that what cannot be considered that cannot be directed to be considered by this Court. In the said judgment, in para 8, it is observed as follows:- 8. Why we are extracting this judgment in such detail is that we should be aware of the consequences of our order when we direct the authorities to "consider". In the aforesaid situation, if the learned Judge, before directing the authorities to consider, had heard the petitioner herein, then the order of the Division Bench reprimanding the 5th respondent would have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Some time, we also come across cases where our directions is to an authority who cannot really pass an effective order and the effective order can only be passed by an authority superior to the one to whom we issue directions. Obviously, when the order is not complied with, since it cannot be complied with because of the hierarchy discipline, the officer has to face the contempt. All these can be avoided if we only bear in mind the guidelines given in the above case by the Supreme Court before we direct the respondent to "consider and pass orders". 9. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of A.P. SRTC Vs. G. Srinivas Reddy, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 674 = 2006 3 L.W.170, had observed as follows:- “19. There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of "pliable" authorities have misused the direction "to consider" issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time- barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to "consider" and dispose of the representation. A claim, which is stale, time- barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to "consider" and dispose of the representation. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to "consider", the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to1.75" "consider" the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order "to consider" as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to "consider", may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of the court's direction to "consider" the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily-wagers seeking regularisation/absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a large-scale misuse of the orders "to consider". 10. In the light of the discussion and decision cited supra, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.