Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S K Chandrashekar, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the non-consideration of his representation dated 18.02.2020 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru. In the representation, he sought interdiction of the establishment of a petrol bunk by respondents 4 and 5, alleging that the license was obtained illegally without following due procedure. The petitioner contended that despite submitting the representation, no action was taken by the second respondent. The State and official respondents, through the Additional Government Advocate, initially opposed the petition but later submitted that if a reasonable time frame was prescribed, the representation could be considered in accordance with law. Notice to respondents 4 and 5 was dispensed with as the court proposed to dispose of the petition with an innocuous order, ensuring that they would be heard by the second respondent during the consideration. The High Court, noting that the grievance was solely about non-consideration, allowed the writ petition in part. It issued a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 18.02.2020 (Annexure-C) within four weeks from the date of the order, after hearing all stakeholders including respondents 4 and 5. The court further directed that if the representation was not disposed of or the result not communicated within the stipulated period, the second respondent would be personally liable to pay a cost of Rs.2,000 per day of delay to the petitioner. All contentions of the parties were kept open, and no costs were awarded. The judgment underscores the duty of public authorities to consider representations and the court’s power to issue mandamus and impose personal costs for non-compliance.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus for Consideration of Representation - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226, 227 - The petitioner sought a mandamus to direct the Deputy Commissioner to consider his representation against the establishment of a petrol bunk. The court, noting the grievance of non-consideration, issued a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representation within four weeks and to hear all stakeholders, including respondents 4 and 5. Held that non-consideration of a lawful representation warrants a mandamus, and to ensure compliance, a personal cost of Rs.2000 per day of delay was imposed on the second respondent (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.02.2020 seeking interdiction of establishment of a petrol bunk.
Final Decision
Writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the second respondent to consider petitioner's subject representation dated 18.02.2020 at Annexure-C and to inform the result of such consideration to the petitioner within an outer limit of four weeks in accordance with law and after hearing all stakeholders including respondent Nos. 4 & 5. If the representation is not disposed off or disposal is not informed to the petitioner within the prescribed period, the second respondent shall personally pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner per day, of delay brooked. All contentions of the parties are kept open. No costs.
Law Points
- Writ of Mandamus
- Consideration of representation
- Natural justice
- Hearing of stakeholders
- Imposition of cost for delay
- Article 226
- Article 227
