ORDER : S. Vaidyanathan, J. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 5 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 23.11.2015. 2. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was illegally taken to custody on 15.10.2015 under the guise of enquiry and he was subjected to harassment and only after four days, i.e., on 19.10.2015, he was sent to judicial custody. Though, she has been making representations since 16.10.2015, there was no response for her representation. Due to previous enmity between her husband and the respondents 3 to 5, her husband is tried to be detained under the various penal provisions and a case was registered in Crime No. 859 of 2015 by the fifth respondent and the e-mail sent by her with regard to harassment to her husband, has not been dealt with. On 19.10.2015, she filed a petition under Section 97 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai and obtained an order of search and thereafter, her husband was remanded to custody on 19.10.2015 at night hours. Narrating all the incidents, the petitioner has made a representation on 23.11.2015 and prayed that the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 5. Therefore, it is prayed that taking note of the contention in the representation and that no case could be foisted against her husband, more particularly, he could not be detained under the Preventive Detention Laws, the relief sought for in the petition may be granted. 5. The Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's husband is originally residing at Tenkasi and that he is a history sheeted rowdy bearing History Sheet No. 273/2007 in Tenkasi Police Station. Her husband was involved in several cases and more particularly in a case in Crime No. 461 of 2007 (triple murder case), which is still pending apart from the other cases. Out of the several cases, in six cases, he got acquittal. 6. Her husband was involved in several cases and more particularly in a case in Crime No. 461 of 2007 (triple murder case), which is still pending apart from the other cases. Out of the several cases, in six cases, he got acquittal. 6. The petitioner's husband was taken into custody based on the statement of the first accused in Crime No. 859 of 2015 and he was arrested. The petitioner's husband having shifted his residence from Tenkasi to Madurai, started doing business, but did not avoid to involve in criminal activities and that he has set a bomb in the bus, which was blasted and damage was caused to the bus. Summons were issued and thereafter enquiry was conducted and search was made in the presence of family members and after informing the learned Judicial magistrate, articles containing substances for being used for explosives, were recovered from the premises of the petitioner's husband. He has been arrayed as second accused in Crime No. 859 of 2015 and he is in judicial custody from 19.10.2015. The petitioner's husband is a history sheeted rowdy and he is involved in several crimes and that his intention is to shift some of the prisoners from one prison to another apart from helping criminals to come out from prisons and involved in supplying substances for bombs to be exploded in the State of Tamil Nadu and one bus was blasted. As the petitioner's husband is in prison, the petitioner has made a representation, but the averments mentioned therein are not correct. The police is investigating the matter and trying to nab the culprits, who are involved in the offence. The petitioner cannot dictate the type and manner, in which the investigation has to be conducted. Her statement that there was harassment, was not correct and that the petitioner is already in prison and there is no question of harassment at all. Her husband is involved in eight cases, in which, he got acquittal in Crime Nos. 707 of 2006, 144 of 2007, 150 of 2007, 152 of 2007, 153 of 2007, 154 of 2007 and 48 of 2009 and the cases in Crime Nos. 461 of 2007 and 48 of 2009 are pending. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that there was no substance in the prayer sought for by the petitioner and prayed for dismissal. 7. Heard both sides. 8. 461 of 2007 and 48 of 2009 are pending. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that there was no substance in the prayer sought for by the petitioner and prayed for dismissal. 7. Heard both sides. 8. A glance at the affidavit filed in support of this petition and on circumspection of the argument advanced on the side of the respondents would unravel that the petitioner's husband is a history sheeted rowdy, who has shifted his residence from Tenkasi to Madurai for the purpose of doing business. He has admittedly been implicated as A.2 in Crime No. 859 of 2015 under the provisions of Explosives Substances Act on the basis of the confession statement given by A.1. The contention of the respondents that the husband of the petitioner has been imparting training to the prisoners in handling explosive substances for execution of his notorious activities by threat and force by shifting them from one prison to another, cannot be simply brushed aside. It is an admitted fact that on the orders of the Judicial Magistrate, a search was conducted in his house and explosive substances were recovered therefrom. Apart from the above, he has also been cited as an accused in a triple murder case, which is still pending. 9. Considering the overall circumstances and taking into account the bad antecedents of the petitioner's husband, this Court finds no justification whatsoever in granting the relief sought by the petitioner and therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. Above all, it is surprising to note as to what made the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instead of filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is best known to her only. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.