Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, B. Kannan, 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, including the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Assistant Director (Panchayat), the District Collector, the Block Development Officer, and the Executive Officer/President of Koothur Panchayat, to take three actions: (i) relocate a proposed drainage construction project on the eastern side of Ward No.5 to a safer location, (ii) clean and maintain existing drainage systems on the southern side of Ward No.5, and (iii) cover the drainage systems on the northern side of Ward No.5 with concrete and ensure proper maintenance. The petitioner had submitted a representation to the official respondents on 18.07.2024 regarding these issues, but the representation 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 cast upon it to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, and non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty. The court, without expressing any views on the merits, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.07.2024 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, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Duty to Consider Representation - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court held 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, justifying invocation of Article 226 to direct consideration within a stipulated time (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court should direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding drainage issues when the representation was pending indefinitely.
Final Decision
The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.07.2024 on its own merits 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, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Law Points
- Duty of statutory authority to consider representation
- Non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty
- Article 226 power to direct consideration
