Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
R.Udayakumar – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Commissionerate of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. – Respondent
Writ Petition

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.Manimaran
For the Respondents: Mr.T.K.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4

Court directs authorities to consider representation and pass orders within 12 weeks under writ jurisdiction.

Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing consideration of a representation dated 05.04.2023 pursuant to prior proceedings. Essential facts involved submission of the representation to revenue authorities for necessary action, with no response received, prompting the petition. The court found the respondents agreeable to dispose of the representation within twelve weeks. The issue framed was whether the authorities should consider and act on the representation. The ratio decidendi emphasized directing the 4th respondent to process the representation lawfully after notice, ensuring timely administrative action. The writ petition is disposed of with directions to the 4th respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks direction for representation consideration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents agree to dispose within twelve weeks. (Para 3)
3. court directs lawful disposal after notice. (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 05.04.2023.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner has given a representation dated 05.04.2023 to take necessary action in pursuant to proceedings in O.Mu.Va.Ni.7(1)/194/ 2023 dated 15.05.2023.

Since no order was passed, the present writ petition is filed.

3. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the petitioner’s representation dated 05.04.2023 will be disposed of by the 4^th respondent within a period of twelve weeks.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

5. In view of the above, this Court directs the 4^th respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 05.04.2023 and pass appropriate orders on the same, in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after issuing notice to the petitioner.

6. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASKRISHNAN RAMASAMY, JR.Udayakumar – AppellantVersusThe Commissioner, Commissionerate of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. – RespondentWrit Petition

Court directs authorities to consider representation and pass orders within 12 weeks under writ jurisdiction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
R.Udayakumar – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Commissionerate of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. – Respondent
Writ Petition