Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S. Balasubramanian, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent, the Director General of Police, Chennai, to consider and pass orders on his representation dated 18.05.2015, which was a mercy petition against a punishment order imposed in PR.No.K1/20/2010 dated 05.06.2010. The court heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials on record. The court found that there is no statutory right vested in the petitioner to submit a mercy petition before the respondent. Consequently, the question of issuing a direction to the respondent to consider and dispose of such mercy petition does not arise. In view of this, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Writ of Mandamus - Statutory Right - The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent to consider his mercy petition against a punishment order. The court held that there is no statutory right vested in the petitioner to submit a mercy petition, and in the absence of such right, no direction can be issued to consider it. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the respondent to consider and dispose of a mercy petition in the absence of any statutory right.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- No statutory right to mercy petition
- Writ of Mandamus not maintainable without legal right
Case Details
Mr. M. Vigneshraj for Mr. M. Muthappan (for petitioner), Mr. U.M. Ravichandran, Special Government Pleader (for respondent)
The Director General of Police, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider and dispose of a mercy petition against a punishment order.
Remedy Sought
Direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 18.05.2015 (mercy petition) against the punishment order in PR.No.K1/20/2010 dated 05.06.2010.
Filing Reason
The petitioner submitted a mercy petition to the respondent, but it was not considered or disposed of.
Previous Decisions
Punishment order in PR.No.K1/20/2010 dated 05.06.2010 was imposed on the petitioner.
Issues
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the respondent to consider a mercy petition in the absence of any statutory right.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the respondent should consider and dispose of the mercy petition.
Respondent opposed, contending no statutory right exists for such mercy petition.
Ratio Decidendi
There is no statutory right vested in the petitioner to submit a mercy petition before the respondent. In the absence of any statutory right, the question of issuing a direction to the respondent to consider and dispose of such mercy petition does not arise.
Judgment Excerpts
This Court finds that there is no statutory right vested in the petitioner to submit a mercy petition before the respondent.
In the absence of any statutory right, the question of issuing a direction to the respondent to consider and dispose of such mercy petition does not arise.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on an unspecified date, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider his mercy petition dated 18.05.2015. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 23.01.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
