In the matter before the Hon’ble Court, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the concerned authorities to discharge their statutory duties in accordance with law. The petitioner alleges that despite repeated representations, the respondents have failed to take appropriate action, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, invoking the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the delay on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and amounts to a dereliction of duty. It was further contended that such inaction infringes upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21. The counsel placed reliance on various precedents wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that administrative authorities must act in a fair, just, and reasonable manner. Per contra, the standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the delay was unintentional and due to unavoidable administrative exigencies. He assured the Court that the matter is under active consideration and appropriate steps will be taken within a reasonable time. He requested that the petition be dismissed as premature. After hearing both sides and perusing the documents placed on record, the Court is of the considered view that a prima facie case is made out. The balance of convenience lies in favor of the petitioner, and if interim relief is not granted, it may result in irreparable injury. Accordingly, the Court issues a notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks. Meanwhile, the respondents are directed to maintain the status quo and ensure that no coercive action is taken against the petitioner. The Registry is instructed to list the matter for final hearing on the next available date. The parties are at liberty to file additional affidavits and documents, if any, within two weeks. Compliance is mandatory.