Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S. Kodieswaran, 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 respondents (District Collector, Madurai; Managing Director, TASMAC; Regional Zonal Manager, TASMAC; and District Manager, TASMAC) to shift or close TASMAC liquor shop No. 5201 situated at T.S.No.113/3, 120 Feet Road running from Mattuthavani to Surveyor Colony, Madurai. The petitioner claimed that the land belongs to Meenakshi Sundareshwarar Temple as per revenue records. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 21.11.2024 to the respondents, but it was not considered. The court observed that whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty to consider it on its merits and pass appropriate orders; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty. The court directed the first respondent (District Collector) to consider the representation and pass orders within three months from receipt of a copy of the order, without expressing any views on the merits. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Duty to Consider Representation - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petitioner sought direction to consider representation for shifting/closing TASMAC liquor shop on temple land - Court held that non-consideration of representation by statutory authority amounts to dereliction of duty and directed the first respondent to consider the representation within three months (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court should direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for shifting/closing a TASMAC liquor shop situated on temple land.
Final Decision
The court directed the first respondent (District Collector) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.11.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Law Points
- Duty of statutory authority to consider representation
- Non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty
- Article 226 power to direct consideration
