Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to take necessary legal action by conducting enquiry and also by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.05.2013. 2. According to the petitioner, some of the officers misguided the then Management and also misappropriated the funds of the Management. He has sent a representation in this regard to the respondents. But, no action has been taken so far. In this connection, he also produced documents to show that the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer's enquiry, which culminated that there was a loss to the Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited. By letter dated 12.12.2014, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government sent a letter to the Managing Director, TANCEM to take necessary action against those who caused huge loss to the Management. Inspite of it, nothing has been fructified. Hence, he has come forward with the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that they have forwarded the complaint sent by the petitioner to the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Chennai for taking necessary action and the matter is now pending with him. 4. The sixth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating that there is no misappropriation as alleged by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has already filed a Criminal Original Petition before the Madras High Court. If he does not satisfy with that, he cannot seek for a Mandamus to reply. According to him, the very petition is not a bona fide one. The decision taken by the Board was not challenged by any body. The Board's decision was only implemented. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is sustainable in law. 5. A reply affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner among the other things, he stated the Criminal Original Petition is no way connected with the present relief against the third respondent since the third respondent has an independent jurisdiction to consider the misappropriation of more than Rs.1.76 crore of rupees. Further, before initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner, he has already taken steps to initiate appropriate criminal as well as departmental proceedings against the erring officials of the Management. Further, before initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner, he has already taken steps to initiate appropriate criminal as well as departmental proceedings against the erring officials of the Management. Ultimately, he would contend that the third respondent has duty bound to take appropriate action upon the petitioner's representation dated 04.05.2013 as per the procedure stated in the vigilance manual and take appropriate action against the officials involved in the various misappropriation. 6. Heard all the parties. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final consent. 7. Taking into consideration the limited scope of the prayer sought for, especially, in view of the subsequent development by the orders of the Government to initiate necessary action against the erring officials and also the enquiry report, suffice to state that the fourth respondent shall consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.05.2013, in tune with the orders of the Government as well as the report and pass appropriate orders, after giving notice to all the parties concerned including the sixth respondent, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.