Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, C. Bhargavi, 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 first and second respondents (Member Secretary, District Town and Country Planning, and Commissioner, Madurai Corporation) to take action against the third respondent, Sivanantham of Siva Promoters, for allegedly encroaching upon a road belonging to Madurai Corporation by erecting a compound wall on the east side of the petitioner's plot. The petitioner had previously submitted a representation to the official respondents on 24.09.2024, 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. Accordingly, the court directed respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.09.2024, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the third respondent, and all other interested persons, and to pass appropriate 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. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Duty of Statutory Authority - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty cast upon it to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, instead of keeping it pending indefinitely. Non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 226. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents 1 and 2 should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation regarding removal of alleged encroachment by demolishing compound wall.
Final Decision
The court directed respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.09.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the third respondent, and all other interested persons, 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. 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
- Writ of Mandamus under Article 226
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 362
M.S.RAMESH, A.D.MARIA CLETE
For Petitioner: Mr.B.A.Muruganantham, For Respondents 1 & 2: Mr.F.Deepak Standing Counsel, For Respondent No.4: Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader
1.The Member Secretary, District Town and Country Planning, Anayur Housing Board, Mudakathan, Madurai. 2.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Anna Maligai, Thallakulam, Madurai – 625 002. 3.Sivanantham, Siva Promoters, Balaji Nagar Extension, Kovalan Nagar, Near Suba Nagar, Madurai – 625 003. 4.The District Collector / Monitoring Committee, Collector Office, Madurai 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 to direct authorities to remove alleged encroachment.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take action by demolishing the compound wall erected by the third respondent encroaching the road belonging to Madurai Corporation.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's representation dated 24.09.2024 regarding encroachment was not considered by the official respondents.
Issues
Whether the respondents 1 and 2 should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation regarding removal of alleged encroachment.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner submitted representation to official respondents on 24.09.2024, which was not considered.
Court observed that non-consideration of representation by statutory authority amounts to dereliction of duty.
Ratio Decidendi
Whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty cast upon it to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying invocation of extraordinary powers under 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
Petitioner filed representation on 24.09.2024 to official respondents. Not being considered, petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.32 of 2025 before Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Court disposed of the petition on 07.01.2025 with directions.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
