A mandamus petition is premature when filed the day after making a representation.

The petitioner filed a public interest writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the State, the Director of School Education and IIT Madras to strengthen and continue the “Anaivarukkum IITM” initiative, so eligible Government-school students in specified southern districts would be informed about IIT Madras BS Degree admissions and receive guidance and reasonable assistance, without altering admission requirements.

The petitioner had submitted a representation on 22 September 2026 and filed the petition the following day, before the respondents had an opportunity to consider it.

The Government submitted that a Career Guidance Scheme for students in Standards 9–12 was monitored by District Collectors, and referred to existing portals and initiatives supporting higher education and technical-course admissions.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a mandamus requiring the respondents to continue or strengthen the “Anaivarukkum IITM” mechanism for Government-school students.

Whether the Court should issue such a direction when the petitioner had approached it one day after making the representation, without allowing the respondents time to consider it, and the Government had described existing guidance measures.

The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus.

The Court applied the principle that a representation must be given sufficient time for the public authorities to examine it and take a considered decision before judicial intervention is sought on the basis of their failure to act.

The Court considered the petition premature because it was filed the day after the representation, leaving the respondents no adequate opportunity to consider or decide it.

It also took account of the Government’s instructions describing the Career Guidance Scheme, increased higher-education participation among Government-school students, and portals for educational and technical-course guidance.

On that record, the Court concluded that further directions were unnecessary.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.