Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Hotel Ornate (Nilgri) Private Limited, represented by its power agent M. Srinivasan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 to cease commercial activities and demolish unauthorized cottages on the petitioner's land in S.No.121/2, 93/3/1A, 103 Part (New S.No.14/1A, Ward-Block 3), Sivaganga Estate, Kodaikanal, as requested in the petitioner's representation dated 01.04.2016. The petitioner alleged that unauthorized commercial activities and cottages had been constructed on its land and that the authorities had failed to take action despite the representation. The respondents 1 to 3, through the learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that on 14.09.2016 a notice was issued to the unauthorized occupants, who then preferred a writ petition and a direction was issued to consider the representation and dispose it of on merits. They stated that necessary action had been taken by the municipal authorities and further action would be taken in accordance with law. The court observed that the writ petition had been pending for the past nine years and had become inter-twined with connected writ petitions and writ appeals, and it appeared that the official respondents had not taken any effective action till date. Given this inaction, the court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 to 5 to complete the action against the unauthorized cottages within a period of four months from the date of the order. No costs were awarded. The judgment was delivered by Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Ms. Justice R. Poornima on 24.04.2025.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Article 226 Constitution of India - Duty of Public Authorities to Act Against Unauthorized Constructions - Petitioner sought mandamus to demolish unauthorized cottages; respondents 1 to 3 submitted notice was issued on 14.09.2016, occupants challenged it, and direction was issued to consider representation; court noted writ petition pending for 9 years and authorities had not taken effective action; directed respondents 1 to 5 to complete action within four months - Held: Public authorities must take effective action and prolonged inaction warrants issuance of mandamus for timely completion of action (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondents 1 to 5 to cease commercial activities and demolish unauthorized cottages on the petitioner's land in Kodaikanal within a time frame, given the long pendency and inaction of authorities.
Final Decision
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 to 5 to complete the action against unauthorized cottages within a period of four months from the date of order (24.04.2025). No costs.
Law Points
- Writ of Mandamus can be issued to compel public authorities to perform their statutory duty against unauthorized constructions
- Delay of 9 years in taking effective action by authorities is sufficient ground for mandamus to complete action within timeframe
- Public authorities are duty-bound to act promptly on complaints of unauthorized construction
