The court affirmed the obligation of authorities to consider representations made under legal statutes within due process.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.01.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P. No.568 of 2025 Mr.G.Ragupathy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Managing Director, TASMAC Ltd., CMDA Tower-2, 4th Floor, Gandhi Irvin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

2.The Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC, 305, Vilankurichi Road, Old Chinthamani Godown, Peelamedu, Coimbatore 4.

3.The District Manager, TASMAC, Warehouse Godown, Angeripalayam, Tiruppur. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take necessary action on petitioner's representation dated 25.07.2023 to increase the rent for the TASMAC shop No.3885 situated at Door No.3/172 SMB Nagar, Ponparapi Road, Olapalayam, Kangayam Taluk, Tiruppur District within time frame.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.V.Suresh Kumar for M/S.Genicon Legal For Respondents : Mr.M.Sekar, Standing Counsel for TASMAC

ORDER

The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to take necessary action on the petitioner's representation dated 25.07.2023 to increase the rent for TASMAC shop No.3885 situated at Door No.3/172 SMB Nagar, Ponparapi Road, Olapalayam, Kangayam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

2. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a representation was submitted on 25.07.2023, requesting the respondents to increase the rent for the TASMAC Shop No.3885. However, the same is yet to be considered, hence the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction to consider and dispose of the representation.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the representation of the petitioner would be considered and orders would be passed in accordance with law.

4. In view thereof, the representation of the petitioner dated 25.07.2023 would be considered by the respondents and orders would be passed as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the representation. The concerned authority shall consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.