Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, I. Ponniah, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent, the Chairman of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), to consider his representation dated 11.05.2016. The representation sought withdrawal of an office order dated 07.01.2014 issued by the second respondent and restoration of an offer of appointment dated 27.10.2012 and a permanent absorption order dated 26.11.2013, allowing the petitioner to join NHAI as Manager (Technical) with continuity of service and consequential benefits. The respondents 1 to 3 objected, arguing that the petitioner had already retired from service, rendering the petition infructuous. The court noted that no counter-affidavit had been filed by the respondents since 2016. Considering the limited nature of the relief sought, the court deemed it appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on its own merits and in accordance with law within twelve weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Consideration of Representation - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petitioner sought direction to consider representation for withdrawal of office order and restoration of appointment - Respondents objected on ground of retirement - Court held that limited relief of consideration of representation does not become infructuous and directed respondent to consider representation on merits within twelve weeks (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition seeking consideration of representation becomes infructuous due to petitioner's retirement
Final Decision
The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.05.2016 on its own merits and in accordance with law within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No costs.
Law Points
- Writ of Mandamus
- Consideration of representation
- Limited relief
- No counter-affidavit filed
- Petition not infructuous despite retirement
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (01) 236
Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan (for petitioner), Mr.Su.Srinivasan (for respondents 1 to 3)
The Chairman, National Highways Authority of India; The Deputy General Manager (HR/Admn), National Highways Authority of India; The Chief General Manager (Technical) and Regional Officer, National Highways Authority of India; The Managing Director (i/c), Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 seeking direction to consider representation for withdrawal of office order and restoration of appointment.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider his representation dated 11.05.2016 for withdrawal of office order dated 07.01.2014 and restoration of offer of appointment dated 27.10.2012 and permanent absorption order dated 26.11.2013, with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's representation dated 11.05.2016 was not considered by the respondents.
Issues
Whether the writ petition seeking consideration of representation becomes infructuous due to petitioner's retirement
Submissions/Arguments
Respondents 1 to 3 objected that the petitioner had already retired from service, making the writ petition infructuous.
Petitioner sought limited relief of consideration of representation.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition seeking limited relief of consideration of representation does not become infructuous merely because the petitioner has retired; the authority must consider the representation on its merits.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a limited relief for a direction to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 11.05.2016.
Considering the limited nature of the relief sought by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 11.05.2016, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed in 2016. No counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents. The petition was heard and disposed of on 23.01.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
