Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, A. Kumaresan, 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 District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, and Municipal Commissioner (respondents 1 to 4) to remove encroachments allegedly made by private respondents 5 and 6 on a public pathway in survey No.235/4B1 and Town Survey No.18/2, and to provide basic amenities to residents of Kani Nagar, Sri Nagar, and Thirupathi Nagar in Kattuparamakudi, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. The petitioner had submitted a representation to the authorities on 31.12.2024, but it was not considered, prompting 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. Without expressing any views on the merits, the court directed the fourth respondent (Municipal Commissioner) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.12.2024, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, private respondents 5 and 6, and all other interested persons, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law 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.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Duty of Statutory Authority - Representation - Non-consideration of representation by a statutory authority amounts to dereliction of duty - Court can direct consideration under Article 226 - The petitioner sought removal of encroachments and basic amenities; the court directed the fourth respondent to consider the representation within three months after hearing interested parties (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court should direct the official respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding removal of encroachments and provision of basic amenities.
Final Decision
The court directed the fourth respondent (Municipal Commissioner) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.12.2024 on its merits, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, respondents 5 and 6, and all 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 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
