Competent authorities are legally obligated to consider representations submitted to them and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable period; failure to do so constitutes a legitimate grievance warranting judicial intervention.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of respondents Nos.1 to 4 and 9 in not considering the representations submitted by the petitioner dated 18.12.2025, 30.12.2025, 08.01.2026, 20.01.2026, 13.02.2026, 06.03.2026 and 26.03.2026 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the said respondents to consider and dispose of the said representations.

2. Heard Sri Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1; learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department, for respondent Nos.2 and 3; learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, for respondent No.4 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent No.9.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the National Convenor of an organization working for the welfare and upliftment of the Shia Muslim community. He submits that several representations were submitted to the respondent authorities by the petitioner seeking various developmental measures, welfare schemes, establishment of institutions, and other facilities for the benefit of the community. He submits that despite submission of multiple representations on different dates, the respondent authorities have failed to take any action or pass any orders thereon. He submits that such inaction is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the principles of natural justice.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, this Court observed that respondents No.5 to 8 have been arrayed in their individual capacity. The Court, therefore, advised to withdraw the Writ Petition against the aforesaid respondents as they are shown in individual capacity and accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo. Recording the said memo, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn against respondent Nos. 5 to 8. Thus, the Writ Petition now survives for consideration only against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 9.

5. Without going into the merits of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner is limited to non-consideration of his representations by the competent authorities.

6. It is a settled principle of law that when a representation is made to a competent authority, such authority is required to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable period. Inaction on the part of the authorities in considering such representations would give rise to a legitimate grievance.

7. In the present case, the petitioner has placed on record copies of representations submitted on various dates. In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the concerned respondents to consider and dispose of the said representations in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 9 shall consider the representations submitted by the petitioner dated 18.12.2025, 30.12.2025, 08.01.2026, 20.01.2026, 13.02.2026, 06.03.2026, and 26.03.2026, and shall pass appropriate orders thereon strictly in accordance with law;

ii. Such exercise shall be completed within a period