Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kalimuthu, 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 third respondent (Tahsildar, Kadavur Taluk) to implement the direction of the first respondent (District Collector, Karur) in proceedings dated 04.10.2024. The direction pertained to land in S.No.51 at Kalayapatti Village Group, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District, and sought removal of encroachments allegedly erected by the fifth respondent (Thangamani) on a pathway and restoration of the pathway. The petitioner had given a representation to the official respondents on 16.05.2023 for removal of the alleged encroachment, but it was not considered, leading to the filing of the writ petition. The court observed that non-consideration of a representation by a statutory authority amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 226. The court directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.05.2023 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 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 - Representation - The petitioner sought a direction to the third respondent to implement the first respondent's order and remove encroachments. The court held that whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty to consider it on merits and pass orders, and non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty. The court directed the third respondent to consider the representation within three months. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the third respondent (Tahsildar) should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation for removal of encroachment on a pathway.
Final Decision
The court directed the third respondent (Tahsildar, Kadavur Taluk) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.05.2023 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the fifth respondent, and all other interested persons, within a period of 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.
Law Points
- Duty of statutory authority to consider representation
- Non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty
- Writ of Mandamus for direction to consider representation
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 13
M.S.RAMESH, A.D.MARIA CLETE
For Petitioner: Mr.V.Kannan, For Respondents 1 to 4: Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Government Pleader
1.The District Collector, Karur District, Karur. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai, Karur District. 3.The Tahsildar, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District. 4.The Block Development Officer, Kadavur Panchayat Union, Karur District. 5.Thangamani
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 third respondent to implement the first respondent's direction and remove encroachments on a pathway.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the third respondent to implement the first respondent's proceedings dated 04.10.2024, remove encroachments erected by the fifth respondent on the pathway in S.No.51, and restore the pathway.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's representation dated 16.05.2023 for removal of alleged encroachment was not considered by the official respondents.
Previous Decisions
The first respondent (District Collector) had issued proceedings in Na.Ka.Aa1/1210/2024-5 dated 04.10.2024, which the petitioner sought to have implemented.
Issues
Whether the third respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation for removal of encroachment.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that his representation dated 16.05.2023 for removal of encroachment was not considered by the official respondents.
Respondents 1 to 4 were represented by the Government Pleader.
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 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, justifying invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
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
The petitioner filed a writ petition on an unspecified date. By consent of both sides, the writ petition was taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. The court dispensed with notice to the private respondent. The petition was disposed of on 30.01.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
