Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M.Nallathambi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 5 (District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, Block Development Officer, Tahsildar, and Executive Officer of Aralvaimozhi Town Panchayat) to remove an alleged encroachment made by the sixth respondent, Robinson, in Sundhersingh Gramani Street alias Church Street. The encroachment was claimed to be a staircase constructed in front of the sixth respondent's house at Door No.12/67, Mission Compound, Aralvaimozhi, Kanniyakumari District. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 28.08.2024 to the official respondents, but it 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 to consider it on its 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 representation dated 28.08.2024, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the sixth respondent, and all other interested persons, and pass 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.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Duty of Statutory Authority to Consider Representation - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 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; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 226 to direct consideration within a stipulated time (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents 1 to 5 should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.08.2024 regarding removal of alleged encroachment by the sixth respondent.
Final Decision
The court directed respondents 1 to 5 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.08.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the sixth respondent, and all other interested persons, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The court clarified that it has not expressed any views on the merits of the matter.
Law Points
- Duty of statutory authority to consider representation
- Non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty
- Writ of Mandamus maintainable for direction to consider representation
