Judgment 1. The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to dispose of the petition dated 26.12.2014, filed by the petitioner, within a stipulated time. 2. According to the petitioner, his petition, dated 26.12.2014 has not been considered. Therefore, he has come forward with this writ petition. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submits that as on date, no transfer application was received from the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 4. From the submissions above made, it is clear that even without applying for transfer, straight away the petitioner has sent a representation. 5. In this connection, I am fortified by the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M. Ingaci vs. Commissioner, Devakottai & Others, 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. 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. 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." 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, (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. 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 dismissed in limini. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 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 dismissed in limini. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. But, it is always open to the petitioner to file a fresh application seeking transfer of Electricity Connection.