Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M. Rathinam, 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 first respondent, the Tahsildar of Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District, to remove an alleged encroachment and unauthorized construction made by the second respondent, R. Ajith Kumar, on a pathway in Survey No.533/26 in Perur South, South Street, Cuddalore Village. The petitioner had previously submitted representations dated 04.03.2023 and 14.10.2024 to the Tahsildar requesting action, but these were not considered. The court noted that the petitioner's representation dated 14.10.2024 was pending without any response. The court observed that when a representation 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, and that non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty. Therefore, the court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 226 to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.10.2024, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the second respondent, 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 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 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 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 court's intervention under Article 226. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first respondent (Tahsildar) is obligated to consider the petitioner's representation regarding removal of encroachment and unauthorized construction.
Final Decision
The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.10.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the second 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 under Article 226
