The petitioner's timings were revised in the year 2003. The petitioner has now filed an application for revision of timings, which is produced as Ext.P1. The petitioner has approached this Court for expeditious consideration of the same. 2. Ext.P1 does not indicate as to when it was filed. In the writ petition also it is not stated when the said application was submitted before the authority concerned. This Court is not expected to issue directions on such application. This Court cannot assume that the respondent has slept over the matter, especially since it is not discernible from the records as to when the application was filed.
In such circumstance, no mandamus could be issued to the respondent and hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
SB // true copy // P.A To Judge.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE