JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to take legal action as against the respondents 6 and 7 and their henchmen for their illegal act of excommunicating the petitioner, his family members and his relatives from the Kamuthi Kshathiriya Nadar community and further direct to ensurethat they will not excommunicate the petitioner and his family in future by considering the representation of the petitioner dated on 20.10.2020 which was sent through registered post on 21.10.2020) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take legal action as against the respondents 6 and 7 and their henchmen for their illegal act of excommunicating the petitioner, his family members and his relatives from the Kamuthi Kshathiriya Nadar community and further direct to ensure that they will not excommunicate the petitioner and his family in future by considering the representation of the petitioner dated on 20.10.2020 which was sent through registered post on 21.10.2020 2. According to the petitioner there was dispute pending between the petitioner and the trust members and thereby the trust members/respondents 5 to 7 have ex-communicated the petitioner from the village and thereby he sent a representation dated 20.10.2020 but the official respondents have not considered the representation, thereby this petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a dispute with regard to the trust between the petitioner and other trustees, thereby the petitioner was ex-communicated from the particular village namely Kamuthi. Therefore he has sent representation to the District Collector and Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, but they have not considered the representation. Hence he has filed the present petition. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1-5 would contend that already the representation of the petitioner was considered and the same was closed. However he is not in a position to produce records to substantiate his contention. 5. Hence he has filed the present petition. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1-5 would contend that already the representation of the petitioner was considered and the same was closed. However he is not in a position to produce records to substantiate his contention. 5. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and also the fact that there is no records to show that already the representation of the petitioner was enquired and closed and also considering the nature of complaint given by the petitioner, it is appropriate to direct the official respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the other parties who are interested therein. 6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 are the competent persons to dispose the representation given by the petitioner. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor admitted that the fourth respondent is the competent person to deal with this matter. 8. In view of the same, the third and fourth respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.10.2010 and pass order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing both parties, who are interested therein. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.