The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a clear and specific legal right and corresponding legal duty for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, as well as the importance of curbing practices that lead to public chaos and unlawful activities.

1. In all these cases, the petitioners seek for a direction to the respective respondent (s) to permit them to conduct the cultural/dance programme by considering their respective representations.

2. The case of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is almost the same. According to the petitioners, the people of the villages, in which the petitioners are residing, have decided to conduct the annual temple festival on different dates during February/March 2014 and that during the said festival, they want to conduct cultural dance programs. The petitioners claim that they sent representations to the Inspectors of Police of the local Police Stations. Since their representations were not considered, they have filed these writ petitions, seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to permit them to conduct cultural dance programs during such festival.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the respective petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.

4. A perusal of the affidavits filed in support of the writ petition as well as the typed set of papers would indicate that the petitioners have sent their respective representations to the respondents from the post office situate within the premises of this Court or from the General Post Office, Madras, whereas, most of the petitioners are residing at Salem, Namakkal and Erode Districts. Therefore, it is highly doubtful as to whether the representations would have been sent by the petitioners themselves. Further, immediately after sending the representations, on the same day or within a day or two, the writ petitions have been filed before this Court seeking for a direction to the respective respondents to permit them to conduct dance/cultural festival, even before such representations could have been received by the respective respondents. In any event, for the temple festival to be conducted in a day or two, the petitioners have filed this writ petition one or two days prior to the date on which the programme has to be conducted. Thus, under the guise of sending representation to the respective respondents, seeking permission to conduct the temple festival inter alia to give police protection for conducting such festival, and alleging that those representations having not been considered by the respondents, the petitioners are seeking for issuance of a Mandamus by this Court. Such a practice has to be deprecated.

5. In this context, I wish to follow the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (M. Ingaci vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai Municipality, Sivagangai District) 2010 2 Law Weekly 785, in which I am also a party, wherein the Division Bench held that there are several instances where unscrupulous petitioners have misused the direction issued to "consider". It was further held that there are large-scale misuse of the orders "to consider". The Division Bench also relied on para Nos. 18 to 210 of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in the case of A.P. SRTC vs. G. Srinivas Reddy (2006) 3 SCC 674 = 2006, 3 Law Weekly 170, wherein in Para Nos. 18 to 20, it was held as under:-

"18. We may also note that sometimes the High Court dispose of the matter merely with a direction to the authority to 'consider' the matter without examining the issue raised even though the facts necessary to decide the correctness of the order are available. Neither pressure of work nor the complexity of the issue can be a reason for the court to avoid deciding the issue which requires to be decided, and disposing of the matter with a direction to 'consider' the matter afresh. Be that as it may.

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 repr