Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43840
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Sakthivel, J
Devika Rani – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police – Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.L.Venkatesan
For the Respondents: V.Meganathan
The High Court may issue a Writ of Mandamus directing administrative authorities to consider and dispose of a pending representation regarding a protest application in accordance with the law within a specific timeframe.
Headnote:The case involves a petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, to compel the authorities to consider representations regarding permission to conduct a silent agitation. The petitioner contended that several representations had been submitted without receiving a response, necessitating judicial intervention. The core issue was whether the respondent authorities are duty-bound to consider the petitioner's request for permission to hold an agitation in accordance with the law. The court held that the respondents must process pending representations within a specified timeframe to ensure administrative accountability and compliance with procedural justice. The petition stands allowed to the extent that the court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding the pending representation for protest permission. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court mandate to process representations in accordance with the law. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER
The present Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed seeking a direction to the Respondents to consider the Petitioner’s representation dated 16.02.2026, 27.02.2026 and 25.03.2026 and consequently, direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 4 to permit the Petitioner to conduct a silent agitation in the designated protest place at Valluvar Kottam, Chennai - 600 034 as fixed by the 4th Respondent against the culprits due to inaction of her periodical complaint.
2.The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had submitted various representations, lastly on 25.03.2026 before the 1st respondent seeking permission to conduct a silent agitation before Valluvar Kottam in a sole manner. However, till date, no orders have been passed on the said representation. Hence, he prayed that it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the Respondents 1 to 4 to consider the claim of the Petitioner.
3.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for Respondents that the Petitioner seeks permission to conduct silent agitation before Valluvar Kottam. However, he fairly submitted that the Petitioner’s representation dated 25.03.2026 will be considered in accordance with law.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials available on record.
5.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in the present Writ Petition and taking note of the fact that the representation submitted by the Petitioner, lastly dated 25.03.2026 is still pending consideration, this Court is inclined to issue directions to the 1st respondent and the same are as follows :-
i) The Petitioner is directed to submit a copy of the latest representation dated 25.03.2026 along with this order copy to the 1st respondent. The same shall be submitted by the Petitioner, within a period of two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
ii) On receipt of such representation, the 1st Respondent is directed to forward the representation dated 25.03.2026 to the jurisdictional police station concerned and the jurisdictional police is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two weeks thereafter.
With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed to the limited extent indicated above. No costs.
