Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, K. Manokaran, 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 respondents 1 to 5 (District Collector, District Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Assistant Director of Panchayat, and Tahsildar) to remove encroachment in a cart track way in Survey No.193 at Vadakarai Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District, allegedly made by respondents 8 and 9 (Jeyaraj and Selvi @ Vaigai Selvi). The petitioner also sought a direction to the second respondent to rectify revenue records to include the cart track way. The petitioner had submitted representations dated 31.08.2024 and 09.09.2024 to the official respondents, but they were not considered. The court, by consent of both sides, took up the writ petition for final disposal at the admission stage. The court observed that when 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. Accordingly, the court directed respondents 1 to 5 to consider the petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity to the private respondents, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Notice to the private respondents was dispensed with as they would be heard by the authority. 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 - Representation for removal of encroachment - The court held that whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty to consider it on merits and pass appropriate orders; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying a writ of mandamus. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the petitioner's representation regarding removal of encroachment and rectification of revenue records.
Final Decision
The court directed respondents 1 to 5 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 31.08.2024 and 09.09.2024 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity to the private respondents, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Notice to the private respondents was dispensed with. 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
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 258
W.P.(MD)No.1189 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.807 of 2025
M.S.RAMESH, A.D.MARIA CLETE
For Petitioner: Mr.K.Palmurugan; For Respondents 1 to 6: Mr.S.Shaji Bino, Special Government Pleader; For Respondent No.7: Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader
1.The District Collector, Madurai District; 2.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai; 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam, Madurai District; 4.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Collector Office Campus, Madurai; 5.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District; 6.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Thirumangalam, Madurai District; 7.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Thirumangalam, Madurai District; 8.Jeyaraj; 9.Selvi @ Vaigai Selvi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus.
Remedy Sought
Direction to respondents 1 to 5 to remove encroachment in cart track way in Survey No.193 and to rectify revenue records.
Filing Reason
Non-consideration of representations dated 31.08.2024 and 09.09.2024 by the official respondents.
Issues
Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the petitioner's representation regarding removal of encroachment and rectification of revenue records.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner submitted representations to official respondents but they were not considered.
Official respondents did not file counter or oppose the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
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 in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. Non-consideration of the representation by the statutory authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, the court is justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.
Judgment Excerpts
It is needless to point out 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 the same pending indefinitely.
non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed representations on 31.08.2024 and 09.09.2024. Not being considered, the writ petition was filed on an unspecified date. The court took up the petition for final disposal at the admission stage by consent of both sides.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
