Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, G.ARUL MURUGAN, J
Shankar S/o. R. Venkatraman – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government Department of Civil Supplies Food and Consumer Protection Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P.No.8812 of 2026 | W.M.P.No.9480 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.P.K.Rajagopal, M/s.R.Chandra Sudan
For the Respondents:M/s. Akila Rajendran Government Advocate
A petitioner cannot seek a writ of Mandamus for a direction that is beyond their remit.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution for allowing the Presidents and Members of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Tamil Nadu to continue in office pending a recruitment process. The Court found that the petitioner could not seek the relief as requested, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The primary issue concerned the authority to grant the sought direction and the court determined that the petition was misconceived. As a result, the petition was dismissed without an order as to costs.
By way of public interest litigation, the following relief is sought:
“a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to forthwith pass orders immediately permitting the Presidents and Members of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, comprised in State of Tamil Nadu to continue in office until the completion of the recruitment process under the new Rules, in compliance with judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar and Ors. vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye and Ors. (2025) 8 SCC
634.”
2. Direction to respondent, as sought by petitioner, to permit the Chairman and Members to continue in the office, cannot be issued at the instance of petitioner.
3. Petition is misconceived and accordingly, it is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application is also dismissed.
