Case Note & Summary
The petitioner S. Balaji filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents (various state authorities) to consider his representations dated 22 August 2024 and 23 August 2024, and until such consideration, not to interfere with the running of his bunk shop. The matter came before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, heard by a Division Bench. The petitioner had set up a bunk shop on a public place without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. When authorities interfered, he submitted representations seeking permission. The court noted that the petitioner’s own representation revealed the shop was unlawfully commissioned on public land. The petitioner argued that his representations should be considered and his shop allowed to continue. The court observed that the petitioner had admitted to putting up the shop without permission, making him an encroacher, and thus he had no legal right to continue the illegal structure. The court held that even for a direction to consider a representation, the petitioner must establish a right or infringement of right. Since no such right existed, no mandamus could be issued; authorities were empowered to remove obstructions. However, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh for allotment in accordance with rules, which would be considered on merits. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Encroachment on Public Land - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner had constructed a bunk shop on public land without prior permission and sought a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to consider his representation for regularization. The Court held that a person who illegally encroaches upon public land cannot seek a mandamus as they have no legal right to maintain such an encroachment, and the authorities are empowered to remove obstructions on public roads and places. Petition was disposed of with liberty to apply afresh for allotment in accordance with rules; held that a writ petition requires establishment of a right or its infringement (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct authorities to consider a representation when the petitioner has illegally encroached upon public land?
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed of with no costs. Petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh application for allotment in accordance with rules.
Law Points
- No mandamus for encroacher on public land without legal right
- authorities empowered to remove obstructions
- Article 226 writ requires establishment of right
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 149
S.M.Subramaniam, K.Rajasekar
1. The Commissioner, Officer of the Differently abled persons, 2. The District Collector, Chengalpattu District, 3. Officer of the Differently abled persons, Chengalpattu District, 4. The Municipal Executive Officer, Tirukalukundram
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for mandamus.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to consider his representations dated 22.08.2024 and 23.08.2024, and not to interfere with his bunk shop.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's bunk shop was being interfered with by authorities; he sought consideration of his representation for permission.
Issues
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct authorities to consider a representation when the petitioner has illegally encroached upon public land?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner sought mandamus to consider his representations and not to interfere with his bunk shop.
Court noted that petitioner admitted to unlawful commissioning of bunk shop without permission, rendering him an encroacher.
Ratio Decidendi
A person who has unlawfully encroached upon public land by constructing a shop without prior permission cannot seek a writ of mandamus to consider a representation for its regularization. The court cannot issue direction to consider representation when the petitioner has no legal right; authorities are empowered to remove obstructions on public roads/places.
Judgment Excerpts
The representation submitted by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner has already put up a Bunk shop in the public place and seeking permission to run the same.
Admittedly, the petitioner has commissioned Bunk shop unlawfully, without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. Thus, the petitioner for all purposes is an encroacher of public land.
Therefore, this Court cannot issue any direction to consider the representation. Even for issuing a direction to consider the representation, the person approaching the Court has to establish his right or infringement of right for entertaining the writ petition.
In the present case, the petitioner is illegally running a Bunk Shop. Therefore, the Authorities are empowered to initiate all further actions to ensure that no obstructions are caused to the public roads and public places.
Procedural History
Petitioner S. Balaji submitted representations on 22.08.2024 and 23.08.2024 to respondents seeking permission to run a bunk shop. Petitioner then filed W.P.No.35073 of 2024 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras seeking a writ of mandamus. The petition was heard and disposed of on 20.02.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
