Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26067
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J
N.Gowthaman – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Collector/ Assistant Returning Officer, Paramakudi Assembly Constituency, Paramakudi Division, Ramanathapuram District. – Respondent
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Sathishwaran
For the Respondents:Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar (R2 & R4), Government Advocate (Crl.), Mr.C.Satheesh (R1 & R3), Government Advocate (Civil)
Statutory authorities must consider representations on merits within stipulated time, or face Article 226 mandamus.
Headnote:Article 226 of the Constitution of India empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and legal duties. Petitioner sought permission to hold a death anniversary function, submitting representations dated 10.03.2026 and 19.03.2026 to authorities, which remained unaddressed. Court found statutory authorities obligated to consider representations on merits without indefinite delay. Key issue: Whether failure to consider representations constitutes dereliction of duty mandating judicial intervention. Court held that non-consideration amounts to dereliction, justifying invocation of Article 226 powers to direct timely disposal on merits. Writ petition disposed with direction to first respondent to consider representations forthwith and pass orders in accordance with law, without expressing views on merits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks mandamus for event permission. (Para 1) |
| 2. prior rejection claimed; representations submitted. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. duty to consider representations on merits. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. direct consideration; petition disposed. (Para 6) |
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct the function on 27.03.2026 from 10.00 am to 7.30 pm of Misa.Sathaiya Konars 47th death anniversary at Vilathur Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, by considering the petitioner's representations dated 10.03.2026 and 19.03.2026 within the time stipulated by this Court.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's relief has already been rejected.
3. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has made representations dated 10.03.2026 and 19.03.2026 to the first respondent.
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials placed before this Court.
5. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.
6. In the light of the above observations and also the submissions made, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 10.03.2026 and 19.03.2026, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law forthwith. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the respondents to consider the same on its own merits.
7. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
