Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S. Aruljothi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents, including the Managing Director of TASMAC, the District Collector, and police authorities, to take action to close TASMAC retail shop No.6546 located at SF.No. 858/10 of Keeranur, Pudukkottai District, remove encroachment on the public pathway, and shift the shop to another suitable place. The petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondents on 29.10.2024, but it was not considered, prompting the filing of the writ petition. The Court observed that when 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, and non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.10.2024 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 and that the respondents were free to consider the representation independently.
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 respondents to consider her representation dated 29.10.2024 regarding closure of TASMAC retail shop No.6546 and removal of encroachment on a public pathway. 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, and non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty. The Court directed the respondents to consider the representation within three months without expressing any views on merits. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the petitioner's representation regarding closure of TASMAC shop and removal of encroachment on a public pathway.
Final Decision
The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.10.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law 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 under Article 226
