Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to consider a representation after a final order is passed.

The petitioner filed a Writ of Mandamus seeking a direction to the Tamilnadu Medical Council (Respondent No. 1) and its Disciplinary Committee (Respondent No. 2) to act upon his representation dated March 16, 2026.

The representation alleged medical negligence by two doctors (Respondent Nos. 5 and 6) regarding the treatment of the petitioner's wife.

During the admission stage, the Medical Council submitted that they had already adjudicated the complaint and passed a final order on November 9, 2024, exonerating the doctors and the hospital.

The petitioner claimed he had not been served with the order prior to the court proceedings.

1. Whether a Writ of Mandamus can be issued to direct a statutory body to consider a representation when a final order on the same subject matter has already been passed.

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus.

It applied the principle that Mandamus is not maintainable when the performance of the duty sought has already been completed or when a final order has rendered the prayer infructuous.

The court found that because the first respondent had already taken up the issue as per the rules and passed a final order on November 9, 2024, the prayer for a Mandamus to "take action" on a representation was no longer viable.

The court noted the submission from the Medical Council that the order had been dispatched via registered post with acknowledgment.

Since the complaint was already dismissed and the doctors exonerated, the court reasoned that the petitioner’s remedy lay in challenging the specific final order of 2024 rather than seeking a direction for a fresh consideration of his representation.

The Writ Petition was disposed of, preserving the petitioner’s liberty to take appropriate legal steps to contest the 2024 order if he remains aggrieved.

No costs were awarded.