Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S. Rajaram, 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 second respondent (District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar) not to issue a license or permission to the fifth respondent (Chinna Muniyasamy) to start a fireworks factory in Village Panchayat Survey Nos. 228, 285/1, 2, 3 & 4 and 286 of Panaiyapatti Village, Vembakottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District. The petitioner had given a representation to the official respondents on 02.12.2024, but it was not considered, leading to the filing of the writ petition. 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 second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.12.2024, on its own merits, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the fifth respondent, and all other interested persons, 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, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
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 cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, instead of keeping it pending indefinitely. Non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 226. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.12.2024 regarding the issuance of license/permission for a fireworks factory.
Final Decision
The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.12.2024 on its own merits, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the fifth respondent, and all other interested persons, within three months from the date of 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
- Writ of Mandamus under Article 226
