Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Murugaraj, 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 second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District, to conclude the enquiry based on his representation dated 20.01.2024. The representation sought cancellation of patta No.3213 standing in the name of the fourth respondent, Ramaswamy Nadar, in respect of Survey No.626/1D1 to an extent of 0.1.50 aers at Pallakurichi Village, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District. The petitioner had made the representation to the second respondent on 20.01.2024, 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 him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping it pending indefinitely. The court, by consent of both sides, took up the writ petition for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. The court dispensed with notice to the private respondent as it was only directing the second respondent to conclude the enquiry after giving due opportunity to the private respondent. The court directed the second respondent to conclude the enquiry within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Duty of Statutory Authority - Representation - The court held that 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, instead of keeping it pending indefinitely. The court directed the second respondent to conclude the enquiry within a period of eight weeks. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) should be directed to conclude the enquiry on the petitioner's representation for cancellation of patta within a time frame.
Final Decision
The court directed the second respondent to conclude the enquiry within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The writ petition was disposed of.
Law Points
- Duty of statutory authority to consider representation
- Mandamus to direct disposal of representation
- Time-bound disposal of pending representations
