Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, P. Radhakrishnan, 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—the District Collector, Sivagangai; the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Sivagangai; and the Thasildar, Taluk Office, Sivagangai—to collect the penalty amount fixed against illegal mining operators as per Annexure V in proceedings O.Mu.M.2/317/2021 dated 03.03.2022 of the second respondent. The petitioner had given a representation to the respondents on 06.12.2024 regarding this matter, but it was not considered, leading to the filing of the writ petition. The court observed that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty cast upon it to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or the other, instead of keeping it pending indefinitely. Non-consideration of the representation by the statutory authority would amount to dereliction of duty, and therefore, the court would be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time. In light of these observations, the court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.12.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 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 and that it was open to the concerned respondents to consider the same on its own merits. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Duty of Statutory Authority - Representation - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought a mandamus to direct respondents to collect penalty from illegal mining operators. The court held that 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, justifying invocation of Article 226. The court directed consideration within three months without expressing views on merits. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the petitioner's representation regarding collection of penalty from illegal mining operators.
Final Decision
The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.12.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law 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
- Article 226 power to direct consideration
