Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, R.Sadhankumar, 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 and the Assistant Director of Mines and Minerals Department (respondents 1 and 2) to take action against the third respondent, J.Petichiammal, for alleged illegal quarrying without following conditions under the Mines and Minerals Act, and to cancel her license. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 03.12.2024 to the official respondents, which remained unconsidered, prompting the filing of the writ petition. The court observed that when 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 within three months, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the third respondent, and all interested persons. 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, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Duty to Consider Representation - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Whenever a representation 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, 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 & 2 are obligated to consider the petitioner's representation regarding illegal quarrying by the third respondent.
Final Decision
The court directed respondents 1 & 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.12.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the third respondent, and all 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, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Law Points
- Duty of statutory authority to consider representation
- Non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty
- Writ of Mandamus maintainable for direction to consider representation
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 393
W.P.(MD)No.31399 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.26297 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, A.D.MARIA CLETE
For Petitioner: Mr.M.Natarajan, For Respondents 1 & 2: Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Government Pleader
1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Department, O/o. The District Collector, Dindigul. 3.J.Petichiammal
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 take action against illegal quarrying and cancel license.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to respondents 1 & 2 to take action against third respondent for illegal quarrying and cancel her license by considering his representation.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's representation dated 03.12.2024 regarding illegal quarrying by third respondent was not considered by the official respondents.
Issues
Whether the respondents 1 & 2 are obligated to consider the petitioner's representation regarding illegal quarrying by the third respondent.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner submitted that the third respondent was engaged in illegal quarrying without following conditions under the Mines and Minerals Act, and his representation to the authorities was not considered.
Ratio Decidendi
Whenever a representation 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, 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 03.12.2024; not considered; filed writ petition on an unspecified date; court heard and disposed of on 06.01.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Mines and Minerals Act:
