Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jagaber Ali, 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, Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer, and Assistant Director of Geology and Mining) to take action against the sixth respondent, Udhayakumar, by recovering a penalty of Rs.38,21,760/- for illegal quarrying, in conformity with an order passed by the fourth respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) in proceedings Oo.Mu.A3/3749/2024 dated 13.07.2024. The petitioner had given a representation to the official respondents on 12.08.2024, 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. The court directed respondents 1 to 5 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2024, on its own merits and pass orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the sixth respondent, and all other interested persons, 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 representation.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Duty 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. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents 1 to 5 are bound to consider the petitioner's representation regarding recovery of penalty for illegal quarrying.
Final Decision
The court directed respondents 1 to 5 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, sixth respondent, and all other interested persons, 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 representation.
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
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 298
W.P.(MD)No.30126 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.25349 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, A.D.MARIA CLETE
Ms.R.Geethanjali for M/s.Ajmal Associates, Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader
1.The District Collector / Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 3.The Tahsildar, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 5.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 6.Udhayakumar
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 to direct authorities to recover penalty for illegal quarrying.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks direction to respondents 1 to 5 to take action against the sixth respondent by recovering penalty of Rs.38,21,760/- for illegal quarrying.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2024 to official respondents was not considered.
Previous Decisions
Fourth respondent passed proceedings Oo.Mu.A3/3749/2024 dated 13.07.2024 regarding penalty.
Issues
Whether the respondents are bound to consider the petitioner's representation regarding recovery of penalty for illegal quarrying.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner submitted that representation was not considered by the authorities.
Respondents 1 to 5 represented by Government Pleader.
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; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
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
Petitioner gave representation on 12.08.2024 to official respondents. Not being considered, filed W.P.(MD)No.30126 of 2024 on 07.01.2025. Court heard and disposed of the petition at admission stage.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
