Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Baratha Muthu, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the fourth respondent (Panchayat Secretary) to take necessary enquiry and action against the fifth respondent (Jayamani) for alleged encroachment, by implementing the first respondent's communication dated 24.12.2024 and considering the petitioner's representation dated 21.12.2024. The petitioner had earlier given a representation to the official respondents on 10.01.2025 for removal of the alleged encroachment, but it was not considered. The court noted that the second respondent (Tahsildar) is the competent authority under the Land Encroachment Act to initiate proceedings, not the fourth respondent. The court held that whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty to consider it on its own merits; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying the court's intervention under Article 226. The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.01.2025 on its own merits, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the fifth respondent, and all other interested persons, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The court clarified that it had not expressed any views on the merits of the matter. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Duty of Statutory Authority - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty to consider it on its own merits and pass appropriate orders; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, and the High Court can direct consideration within a stipulated time (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court should direct the competent authority to consider the petitioner's representation regarding alleged land encroachment within a stipulated time.
Final Decision
The court directed the second respondent (Tahsildar) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.01.2025 on its own merits, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the fifth respondent, and all other interested persons, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Duty of statutory authority to consider representation
- Non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty
- Article 226 power to direct consideration
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 8
M.S.RAMESH, A.D.MARIA CLETE
Mr.B.Anandan (for petitioner), Mr.J.Ashok (for respondents 1 & 2), Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran (for respondent no.3)
1.The District Collector / Monitoring Committee, Madurai District, Madurai; 2.The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District; 3.The Block Development Officer, Kallikudi Panchayat Union, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District; 4.The Panchayat Secretary, Maruthangudi Panchayat & Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District; 5.Jayamani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the fourth respondent to take action against alleged encroachment.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a direction to the fourth respondent to take necessary enquiry and action against the fifth respondent/encroacher by implementing the first respondent's communication dated 24.12.2024 and considering the petitioner's representation dated 21.12.2024.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's representation dated 10.01.2025 for removal of alleged encroachment was not considered by the official respondents.
Previous Decisions
First respondent issued communication Na.Ka.No.267/2024/D8 dated 24.12.2024.
Issues
Whether the court should direct the competent authority to consider the petitioner's representation regarding alleged land encroachment within a stipulated time.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that his representation for removal of encroachment was not considered.
Respondents did not file counter; matter disposed at admission stage by consent.
Ratio Decidendi
Whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, and the High Court can direct consideration within a stipulated time under Article 226.
Judgment Excerpts
Whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely.
Non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed writ petition on 30.01.2025; by consent of both sides, taken up for final disposal at admission stage.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Land Encroachment Act:
