Madras High Court Directs Authorities to Consider Representation Against Unilateral Jallikattu Ceremony — Duty of Statutory Authority to Decide Representations Within Stipulated Time. Non-consideration of representation under Article 226 of Constitution of India amounts to dereliction of duty, court directs consideration within three days.

High Court: Madras High Court
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 5 (District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, Superintendent of Police, and Inspector of Police) to forbear the sixth respondent from conducting the Melatheru Jallikattu Ceremony unilaterally, scheduled on 15.01.2025, and other religious ceremonies, until the disposal of pending suits. The petitioners had given a representation to the official respondents on 28.12.2024, which was not considered. 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 representation within three days from receipt of the order, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the sixth respondent, and all other interested persons. 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 - Representation - The court directed the respondents 1 to 5 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.12.2024 within three days, after giving opportunity to all interested parties, holding that non-consideration of a representation by a statutory authority amounts to dereliction of duty and the court can invoke Article 226 to direct consideration within a stipulated time (Paras 5-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondents 1 to 5 should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.12.2024 regarding the unilateral conduct of Melatheru Jallikattu Ceremony by the sixth respondent.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court directed respondents 1 to 5 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.12.2024 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 persons interested in the subject property, within a period of three days 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.

Law Points

  • Duty of statutory authority to consider representation
  • Mandamus for consideration of representation
  • Article 226 of Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 311

W.P.(MD)No.652 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.437 of 2025

2025-01-09

M.S.RAMESH, A.D.MARIA CLETE

Mr.S.Ramanathan, Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, Mr.P.Kottaisamy

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 forbear the sixth respondent from conducting the Melatheru Jallikattu Ceremony unilaterally scheduled on 15.01.2025 and other religious ceremonies, till disposal of pending suits, based on petitioner's representation dated 28.12.2024.

Filing Reason

Non-consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 28.12.2024 by the official respondents.

Issues

Whether the respondents 1 to 5 should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.12.2024.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner submitted that a representation was given on 28.12.2024 but not considered.

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, and the court can invoke Article 226 to direct consideration 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 petitioners filed a writ petition on 09.01.2025 seeking a Mandamus. The court, by consent of both sides, took up the writ petition for final disposal at the stage of admission. The court dispensed with notice to the private respondent and directed the official respondents to consider the representation within three days.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Directs Authorities to Consider Representation Against Unilateral Jallikattu Ceremony — Duty of Statutory Authority to Decide Representations Within Stipulated Time. Non-consideration of representation under Article 226 of Constit...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Temporary Injunction Restraining Gram Panchayat President in Election Dispute — Rule 14 of Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayath) Rules, 1995 Bars Civil Court from Grantin...