Whenever a representation of any nature is sent to a statutory authority, duty is vested upon them to consider it on merits and pass appropriate orders.
High Courts are over burdened with writ petitions filed for a relief seeking for a direction in a writ of mandamus to consider XXX etc. If authorities considered public representations on a periodic basis, the High Court’s burden would drastically be reduced.
What is a mandamus?
It refers to a command or order issued to direct a public authority to perform the public duty or forbear them from doing any act that they are legally bound by. This prerogative remedy of mandamus is used for enforcing the performance of public duties by public authorities of all kinds. Therefore, any person who is affected by the violation or abuse of such public duty and has the right to compel its performance can apply to a High Court for issuance of the writ of mandamus
There are two aspects that have to be considered:
1. Till what time should an applicant wait for a reply to his/her representation or acted upon before filing a writ petition under Article 226 in the concerned High Court?
The Courts have time and again held that a writ petition ought to be filed within a ‘reasonable time’ of arising of the cause of action. Although the words ‘reasonable time’ have not been provided for specifically in the rules framed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, they have been often interpreted by the Courts to signify a timeline based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. It is also to be understood that a simple direction to consider the representation would not confer any right on the petitioners and also cannot be construed as a ‘positive direction’.
This underlying principle was also recently dealt by the Hon’ble Madras High Court wherein it was observed that a direction to consider the representation cannot be considered a favorable order per se and restraint be exercised in such matters to ensure appropriate remedy is given to the petitioner. The outcome of which will eventually be challenged in the event it is not favourable to the affected party.
In the instant case, the grievance of the writ petitioners was that land that they had purchased was wrongly classified and reflected as ‘sarkar poramboke’ in its TSLR. Accordingly, a representation was sent to the respondents requesting them to rectify the error and enter the names of the petitioners in the TSLR instead. Since there was no response from the respondents, a writ of mandamus was filed directing the 1st respondent to enter the petitioners’ names in the TSLR wrt property owned by them.
The Court after perusing the facts and submissions made thereof, directed the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representation on merits and pass appropriate orders within the prescribed timeline.
Assisted by Adv. Sandhya and Adv. Darshan
