Madras High Court Directs Statutory Authority to Consider Representation for Drainage and Paver Blocks in Ward No.18. Non-consideration of representation amounts to dereliction of duty under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

High Court: Madras High Court
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, C. Perumal, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the third respondent, the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat, to provide drainage channels and lay paver blocks in all streets of Ward No.18, Amman Nagar, Kondamanayakkanpatti, Aundipatti Taluk, Theni District. The petitioner had submitted representations dated 04.11.2024, 25.11.2024, and 26.12.2024 to the respondents, but these were not considered. The court observed that when a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty to consider it on its own merits and pass appropriate orders; keeping it pending indefinitely amounts to dereliction of duty. Therefore, the court directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representations within three months, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and other interested persons. The court clarified that it had not expressed any views on the merits of the matter. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Duty to Consider Representation - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought a direction to the third respondent to consider representations for providing drainage and paver blocks. The Court held 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, justifying invocation of Article 226. (Paras 4-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the third respondent is obligated to consider the petitioner's representations for providing drainage channel and laying paver blocks in Ward No.18.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 04.11.2024, 25.11.2024, and 26.12.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and other interested persons, 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
  • Article 226 of Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 321

W.P.(MD)No.771 of 2025

2025-01-09

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

Mr.M.Pounraj (for petitioner), Mr.P.Thilak Kumar (for respondents 1 & 2)

C. Perumal

1. The District Collector, Theni District, 2. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Theni, 3. The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat Office, Aundipatti Post, Theni District

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 the third respondent to provide drainage channel and lay paver blocks in Ward No.18 of Amman Nagar, Kondamanayakkanpatti, Aundipatti Taluk, Theni District, by considering representations dated 04.11.2024, 25.11.2024, and 26.12.2024.

Filing Reason

Non-consideration of representations by the respondents.

Issues

Whether the third respondent is obligated to consider the petitioner's representations for providing drainage and paver blocks.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner submitted representations dated 04.11.2024, 25.11.2024, and 26.12.2024 to the respondents, which were 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, justifying invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

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 petitioner filed representations on 04.11.2024, 25.11.2024, and 26.12.2024. Since they were not considered, the writ petition was filed. The court took up the petition for final disposal at the admission stage by consent of both sides.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Directs Statutory Authority to Consider Representation for Drainage and Paver Blocks in Ward No.18. Non-consideration of representation amounts to dereliction of duty under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Employer's Writ Petition Challenging Labour Court's Reinstatement Order in Retrenchment Case. Termination of Probationer Without Notice or Compensation Under Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Held Illegal as Em...