( 1 ) RULE nisi. Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries took notice on behalf of the respondents. The Writ Petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties.

( 2 ) THE Court can take notice of the feet that large number of writ petitions are filed in this Court seeking directions to the public authorities to consider and dispose of extra-legal letters, petitions, representations within time-frame. This case is one of such cases where such a request is made for a direction to the respondents to consider an extra-legal representation. The question which falls for consideration is whether such requests can be granted by this Court by virtue of the power conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Although Article 226 of the Constitution of India speaks about the power of this Court to issue not only prerogative writs, but also orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose, it is well settled that Writs or Orders can be issued only for the enforcement of fundamental rights or other rights. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal, 1952 SCR 28, Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044 and in Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union (Regd.) Sindri and others v. Union of India and others, MR. 1981 SC 344 while interpreting the phrase "any other purpose" occurring in Article 226 held that "any other purpose , in short, means the "enforcement of any legal right" and the "performance of any legal duty". A right to be considered is also a legal right which can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, if the Court finds that a representation or a letter or a correspondence or a petition filed before a public authority is extra-legal, no direction can be issued to such public authority to consider and dispose of such representation or petition or correspondence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court can also take notice of the feet that in some cases where directions were issued to consider and dispose of extra-legal representations, petitions, correspondence or letters to the public authorities within a time-frame, and when those public authorities could not carry out the directions within the stipulated time, they are hauled up in the contempt cases. In a Social Welfare State, it is trite to state that the public authorities receive thousands of representations, applications, petitions which are extra-legal in nature seeking favours, benefits and expressing grievances, and seeking intervention and support of the State and State authorities. If the Court were to issue directions in all such cases to the public authorities to consider and dispose of the petitions, applications which are extra-legal in nature, thereby I mean, not made or submitted under any provision of law obligating the authorities to consider; the authorities may not find time to discharge their essential duties and functions entrusted to them by. law, and the efficacy of administration will suffer.

( 3 ) IN the premise of the aforementioned principles, let me now refer to the facts of this case. The petitioner is Water Users Association, Peddacheruvu in Maddulaparva village. In its representation dated 7-8-1998 submitted to the Assistant Director, Fisheries Department, Machilipatnam, it is stated that the members of the petitioners association are the ayacutdars of Peddacheruvu in Maddulaparva village, and due to the illegal acts of the office-bearers of Maddulaparva Fishermen Cooperative Society, they are feeing lot of difficulties in repairing the canals. Admittedly, this representation is not made under any provision of law. In other words, the representation is extra-legal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was not able to trace the duty cast on the Assistant Director to consider the representation and take action thereon with reference to an