Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S. Anbalagan, 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 respondents, including the State of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administrative Director, Municipal Commissioner of Thuraiyur Municipality, Regional Director of Municipal Administration, and the Local Body Ombudsman, to take action on his representation dated 05.12.2023. The representation sought the removal of a building named Sri Venkateshwara Lodge, which was allegedly constructed on the Trichy to Thuraiyur Extension road, in light of an order passed by the Local Body Ombudsman on 20.09.2024. The petitioner had made the representation to the respondents, 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 own merits and pass appropriate orders, instead of keeping it pending indefinitely. Non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying the invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 226. Accordingly, the court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.12.2023 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and all other interested persons, within a period of 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 - Non-consideration of representation - Petitioner sought direction to respondents to consider his representation for removal of a building allegedly obstructing road extension - Court held that whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty to consider it on merits and pass appropriate orders; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty - Court directed respondents to consider representation within three months after hearing interested parties (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.12.2023 regarding removal of a building allegedly encroaching on a road extension.
Final Decision
The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.12.2023 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and all other interested persons, within a period of 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
- Mandamus for non-consideration
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
