Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to consider his

representation dated 25.05.2015, a copy whereof is at

Annexure-A wherein he has sought for marking/fixing of

boundaries of the scheduled sites. An application is moved

by the Trust seeking it’s impleadment contending that a

portion of the property belongs to it. Ordinarily such

applications are favoured since the applicant answers the

description of ‘proper party’ if not ‘necessary party’ vide

RAZIA BEGUM Vs. SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM AIR

1958 SC 886 and therefore, the leave for impleadment is

granted and petitioner is directed to amend the cause title.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that

when a citizen makes a representation of the kind, the

second respondent being a statutory authority is bound to

3

take a call thereon and that having not happened, he is

knocking at the doors of writ court. There is force in this

submission.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is

disposed off directing the second respondent to consider

the subject representation in accordance with law and

inform result of such consideration to the petitioner and the

third respondent now impleaded, within an outer limit of

eight weeks. If delay is brooked, in the next level of

litigation heavy cost may be imposed on the answering

respondent.

It hardly needs to be stated that the consideration of

subject

representation

shall

take

place

with

the

participation of all stake holders including the third

respondent.

All contentions are kept open.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS