Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 50411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Krishnan Ramasamy, J
S.R. Subramanian – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
WP No. 21414 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.K. Suresh
For the Respondents: M. Guruprasad
A Writ of Mandamus can be issued to direct statutory authorities to resolve pending administrative appeals within a fixed time-bound period in accordance with the law.
Headnote:The case concerns a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct an appellate authority to dispose of a pending appeal. The primary facts involve the petitioner filing an appeal against the proceedings of a lower revenue official, which remained unaddressed by the second respondent. The court found that the respondent agreed to resolve the matter within a period of 12 weeks. The core issue is whether the court should compel the statutory authority to perform its procedural duty of disposing of the appeal on merit. The reasoning established that a time-bound mandate is necessary to ensure the effective disposal of administrative appeals without expressing views on the substantive merits of the contentions raised. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of 12 weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. mandamus for time-bound disposal of pending administrative appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent/revenue divisional officer, tiruvannamalai district, tiruvannamalai - 606601, to consider and dispose of the petitioners appeal pending before him in accordance with law and on merits, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal filed before the 2nd respondent.
2. Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned Government's counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. By consent of the parties, the main petition is taken up for disposal in the stage of admission itself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, against the proceedings of the 3rd respondent. However, the said appeal was not at all considered by the 2nd respondent till date. Hence, this petition.
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner’s appeal will be disposed of within a period of 12 weeks and hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent and also perused the entire materials available on record.
7. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to consider the online appeal filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.
