Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, R.Ravi Ganesh, 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 District Collector of Trichy and the Commissioner of Trichirappalli City Corporation to demolish an alleged illegal construction put up by the third respondent, Kaja Nizamudeen, on specific plots in Saral Avenue, Uyyakondan Thirumalai Village, within the Trichy City Corporation limits. The petitioner had previously submitted representations dated 06.08.2024 and 17.08.2024 to the official respondents requesting removal of the alleged encroachment, but these representations 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 invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 226 to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations. The court directed respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representations dated 06.08.2024 and 17.08.2024 on their own merits, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the third respondent, and all other interested persons, and 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 to consider it on its own merits and pass appropriate orders; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying court's intervention under Article 226 to direct consideration within a stipulated time (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court should direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding alleged illegal construction when the representation was pending indefinitely.
Final Decision
The court directed respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 06.08.2024 and 17.08.2024 on their own merits, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the third respondent, and all other interested persons, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this 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 power to direct consideration
