Hasan Abdul Kadar vs Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 45890

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J
Hasan Abdul Kadar – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board – Respondent
Writ Petition

Important Points

The High Court may issue a writ of mandamus directing an administrative authority to consider and dispose of a citizen's representation in accordance with law, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Subject

Administrative Law - Writ of Mandamus

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Art.226

Headnote

The petitioner approached this court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider a pending representation regarding water supply charges. The petitioner submitted that a request was made for the allotment of 6000 liters of water at appropriate charges, but no response was received. The court considered the prayer for a limited direction to the respondent to act upon the representation. The crux of the issue is whether a statutory body is obligated to consider a citizen's request within a reasonable time frame. The court, citing judicial restraint, observed that it would not adjudicate on the merits of the contentions but would ensure procedural compliance by the respondent. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2026, on merits and in accordance with law, and to pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Veeraraghavan

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks direction by court to compel respondent to consider pending representation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court directs authority to consider representation on merits within a stipulated timeframe. (Para 3)

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation and dispose of the complaint by the petitioner dated

26.02.2026.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made representation dated 26.02.2026 to the respondent stating that it is enough that if 6000 liters of water is granted and sought to collect charge for 6000 liters of water, however, there is no response. Hence, this Court may, without going into the merits of the case, issue direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2026 and to pass appropriate orders, within a reasonable time frame.

3.Considering the limited relief now sought for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2026, on merits and in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4.The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.