JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents herein to take action against the delinquent officers based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 27.07.2016, 28.07.2016, 30.07.2016 & 03.09.2016 within a time frame fixed by this Hon''ble High Court.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed quite innocuously in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction against the first and second respondents, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation at Chennai and Director General of Police (Vigilance), at Chennai, to take action against delinquent Officers, who are not named in the affidavit filed by the petitioner herein. 2. The petitioner had given a complaints on 27.07.2016, 28.07.2016, 30.07.2016 and 03.09.2016. The petitioner seeks that such initiation of disciplinary proceedings should be done within a time frame. The petitioner is Coimbatore Consumer Voice, represented by its Secretary N.Logu at Avinashi Road, Coimbatore. 3. I am not able to hold that either Mr. N.Logu in his individual capacity or representing the petitioner / Coimbatore Consumer Voice, as its Secretary, has any locus to call upon the first and second respondents to initiate action against whom he terms as delinquent Officers without naming them. 4. The first and second respondents are under no obligation to go on a rowing expedition, who actually the petitioner meant in the complaints aforementioned. Even otherwise, if there has been any act of omission or commission done by anybody, disciplinary proceedings always can be initiated on personal satisfaction of the authority, who is vested with such responsibility to initiate such disciplinary action. 5. The petitioner is a third party stranger. They are not working under the first and second respondents or working in the Department where the said delinquent Officers are supposedly working. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition a lengthy description has been given about the Electricity connection given to a particular building P.N.R.Complex in Avinashi Road, Coimbatore and it had been stated that this has caused loss to the TANGEDCO. If loss has been caused, then it is the officials of the TANGEDCO who should enquire into that aspect and not the petitioner. 7. I am informed that consequent to the filing of the Writ Petition disciplinary proceedings has also been initiated. 8. If loss has been caused, then it is the officials of the TANGEDCO who should enquire into that aspect and not the petitioner. 7. I am informed that consequent to the filing of the Writ Petition disciplinary proceedings has also been initiated. 8. Let me make it clear that this Court does not grant any approval for such initiation of any disciplinary proceedings. It is an independent action taken by the respondents dehors the present Writ Petition. The petitioner has no locus standi to call upon any official to initiate any disciplinary proceedings without naming the delinquent Officers in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. Such initiation of disciplinary proceedings without an opportunity of being heard, in my opinion, would not withstand judicial scrutiny. 9. At any rate, since the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated, I would leave it to the respondents and the said officials to take further action in accordance with law. 10. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.