ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed a Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the petition in File No. L1 21716/2015 to grant of patta for the property in Survey No.178/1 to an extent of 1 Acre 50 Cents in Mela Parthibanoor Group, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 2. Even as per the affidavit of the petitioner, the petitioner earlier had approached the Sub-Collector, Paramakudi, seeking patta. The Sub-Collector, Paramakudi, has rejected to grant patta and directed the Tahsildar, Paramakudi, to re-classify it as a Government Poromboke land. But, the petitioner would state that a direction was issued to reclassify as Government Poromboke and at the same time, liberty is also given to the petitioner to approach the Tahsildar again with relevant documents to seek patta. Now, the petitioner made another application to the Tahsildar, Paramakudi, to issue patta. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent. 4. Without challenging the order of the Sub-Collector dated 10.07.2015 and when no application is filed before the Tahsildar, for issuance of patta, the petitioner's recourse cannot be considered. In similar circumstances, this Court in M. Ingaci Vs. The 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. Therefore, very strongly opposes the application of this nature and the maintainability of the application also. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.S. RTC Vs. G. Srinivas Reddy, (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 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". 5. Following the Apex Court's judgment cited supra, a Division Bench of this Court, in M. Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai & Others, 2010 (2) L.W. 785 , had in para 8 observed:- “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." 4. 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 appear before the Tahsildar and agitate his case on merits and in accordance with law.