Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S.M. John Britto, 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 remove a construction allegedly put up on the northern side road margin of Visuvasapuram 2nd Street, Gnanaoilipuram, Madurai. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 23.12.2024 to the respondents, but it was not considered, prompting the filing of the writ petition. The respondents included the District Collector, Madurai District; the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation; the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai West; and officials of TANGEDCO. The court, comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice A.D. Maria Clete, observed that whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty cast upon it to consider the same on its merits and pass appropriate orders, instead of keeping it pending indefinitely. Non-consideration of a representation amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying the court's intervention under Article 226. Accordingly, the court directed the second respondent (Commissioner, Madurai Corporation) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2024 on its own merits 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, leaving it open to the respondents to decide. 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 mandamus to direct respondents to consider his representation for removal of construction on road margin. The Court held that whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty to consider it on its own merits and pass appropriate 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 regarding removal of construction on road margin.
Final Decision
The court directed the second respondent (Commissioner, Madurai Corporation) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2024 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
- Extraordinary powers under Article 226
