Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, V. Saroja, 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 respondents 1 to 8 (various government authorities including the District Collector, Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Tahsildar, Block Development Officer, Assistant Divisional Engineers of Highways, and Executive Officer of Markayankottai Town Panchayat) to consider her representations dated 07.08.2023 and 04.12.2023 regarding removal of encroachments allegedly put up by private respondents 9 to 11 (Suresh, Satheesh, and Rajamani) at Survey No.380 situated at Pulikuthi – U.Ammapatti Road, Markayan Kottai revenue village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. The petitioner had given a representation to the official respondents on 04.12.2023, 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 cast upon it to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty. Accordingly, the court directed respondents 1 to 8 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.12.2023 on its merits and pass orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, private respondents 9 to 11, and all other interested persons, 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 representation.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Duty of Statutory Authority - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 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 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents are bound to consider the petitioner's representation regarding removal of encroachments within a stipulated time.
Final Decision
The court directed respondents 1 to 8 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.12.2023 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, respondents 9 to 11, 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 with regard to the merits of the representation.
Law Points
- Duty of statutory authority to consider representation
- Writ of Mandamus under Article 226
- Dereliction of duty by non-consideration
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 365
M.S.RAMESH, A.D.MARIA CLETE
For Petitioner: Mr.P.Mahendran, For Respondents 1 to 7: Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader
1.The District Collector / Monitoring Committee, Theni District, Theni. 2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Office of the Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Theni Zone, Theni District. 3.The Tahsildar, Uthamapalayam Taluk Office, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. 4.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats), Uthamapalayam Panchayat Union, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. 5.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways (Construction and maintenance), Bodinayakanoor, Theni District. 6.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways (Construction and maintenance), Theni, Theni District. 7.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways (Construction and maintenance), Uthamapalayam, Theni District. 8.The Executive Officer, Markayankottai Town Panchayat, Markayankottai, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. 9.Suresh 10.Satheesh 11.Rajamani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 seeking Mandamus to direct authorities to consider representation regarding removal of encroachments.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks direction to respondents 1 to 8 to consider her representations dated 07.08.2023 and 04.12.2023 and remove encroachments by respondents 9 to 11 at Survey No.380.
Filing Reason
Non-consideration of petitioner's representation dated 04.12.2023 by the official respondents.
Issues
Whether the respondents are bound to consider the petitioner's representation regarding removal of encroachments within a stipulated time.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner submitted that she gave representation to official respondents on 04.12.2023 but it was not considered.
Respondents 1 to 7 represented by Additional Government Pleader.
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 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 W.P.(MD)No.360 of 2025 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus. The court, by consent of both sides, took up the writ petition for final disposal at the stage of admission. Notice to private respondents was dispensed with as the court was directing consideration of representation after giving opportunity to them.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
