Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to cancel the second respondent's sangam registered under the Tami Nadu Societies Registration Act bearing No.26/2011. 2. According to the petitioner, their sangam has not consented to be a member of the association nor some other members who have been included without their concurrence or consent. Therefore, the very permission granted to them and the registration should not be there and it should be cancelled. In fact, the petitioner made a representation on 05.02.2014. Since it has not been considered, he has come forward with this Writ Petition. 3. The second respondent appearing through the Advocate would mainly contend that their sangam was originally registered as early as on 01.02.2011 whereas the petitioner's sangam was registered on 24.03.2011. Even as per the information received under the Right to Information Act which has been produced by the petitioner at the time of registration there were only 23 members and later on the additions from 24 to 40, according to the petitioner, was without consent. Whereas, even as per the document, it is very clear that they have been included as a member on 13.03.2011 much prior to registration of the petitioner's registration viz., on 24.03.2011. The petitioner was a willing participant, if he does not want now, nobody prevents them and they can always go out of the sangam that cannot be a reason to consider the cancellation of registration of the second respondent's sangam because it is not one of the reasons as adumbrated under the Act for cancellation of the registration. The learned counsel would further contend that the consideration at this point of time does not arise unless the members who have signed have not specifically come forward and only one member has come forward and hence, mandamus cannot be granted. 4. In this connection, I am fortified by the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M.Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai & Others, reported in 2010-2-L.W.785, to which I was also a party. In the said decision, following the Supreme Court decision, this Court has held that an application that could not even be considered, cannot be directed to be considered by the authority and therefore, very strongly opposed the application of this nature and even the very maintainability of the application itself. In the said decision, following the Supreme Court decision, this Court has held that an application that could not even be considered, cannot be directed to be considered by the authority and therefore, very strongly opposed the application of this nature and even the very maintainability of the application itself. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment, viz., paragraph No.8 reads as under: “.... 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". 5. In this connection, it would also be worthwhile to refer to a judgment of 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, wherein it has been 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. 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 to "consider" the grant of relief. 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 to "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". 6. In view of the above decisions, I am of the considered view that the writ petition is not at all maintainable and it has to be dismissedin limini. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 7. In any view of the matter, if the petitioner sangam is not willing to be a member, it is always open for them to resign or to declare that they are not a member of the Association. The second respondent also says that if the petitioner is not willing, they can very well remove their name and in so far as the other members are concerned, they are not before this Court.