Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, C. Esakkimuthu, 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 to widen a road from Periyathalai (ECR Road) to Tisaiyanvillai in Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District. The petitioner had submitted a representation to the official respondents on 06.11.2024 regarding the road widening, but it was not considered, leading to the filing of the writ petition. 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, instead of keeping it pending indefinitely. Non-consideration of the representation amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying the court's invocation of its extraordinary powers under Article 226. The court directed the second respondent (Divisional Engineer, Highways Department) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.11.2024 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 the respondents were free to consider the representation 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 direction to widen a road from Periyathalai to Tisaiyanvillai. The court held that whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty to consider it on merits and pass orders, and non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty. The court directed the second respondent to consider the representation within three months. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the petitioner's representation for road widening within a stipulated time.
Final Decision
The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.11.2024 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.
Law Points
- Duty of statutory authority to consider representation
- Non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty
- Writ of Mandamus under Article 226
