Disposed¶40

R. Mayilsamy v. The Director of Municipal Administration

Madras HC20 Jan 2025WP(MD)/1203/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; non-consideration of representation; statutory authority duty to decide representations; dereliction of duty; unauthorized construction; building violation; multi speciality hospital; Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971; Article 226; time-bound direction of three months; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; WP(MD) No.1203 of 2025; R. Mayilsamy v. Director of Municipal Administration; disposed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2023 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the private respondent and other interested persons, within three months from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs. ¶40

R. Mayilsamy Vs The Director of Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the official respondents (respondents 1 to 6) were bound to consider and act on the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2023 alleging unauthorized construction and building violation by the 7th respondent hospital under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

¶30

Court's answer

Whenever a representation of this nature is made to statutory authorities, there is a duty cast upon them to consider it on its own merits and pass appropriate orders one way or the other instead of keeping it pending indefinitely; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty justifying invocation of Article 226 powers to direct consideration within a stipulated time.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The 3rd respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2023 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the private respondent and other interested persons, within three months from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶36

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not express any view on the merits of the matter, leaving the respondents free to consider the representation on its own merits.obiter¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of mandamus under Article 226 — Petitioner sought a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to take action against the alleged unauthorized construction and building violation by the 7th respondent hospital under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, pursuant to his representation dated 17.08.2023, which had not been considered. Held: whenever such a representation is made to statutory authorities, they are duty-bound to consider it on its own merits and pass appropriate orders instead of keeping it pending indefinitely; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty and justifies invocation of Article 226. The 3rd respondent was directed to consider the representation on merits, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, the private respondent and all other interested persons, within three months. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits. Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

¶1

WP(MD). No.1203 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

WP(MD). No.1203 of 2025

¶7

R. Mayilsamy ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Director of Municipal Administration, No.75, Urban Administrative Buildings, Santhome High Road, Mrc Nagar, Chennai 28.

¶10

The District Collector / Chairperson, High Level Monitoring Committee, Collectorate Building, Madurai 625 020..

¶11

The Commissioner / Member- Convener, High Level Monitoring Committee, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Thallakulam, Madurai 625 002.

¶12

The Member Secretary / the Assistant Director, Town Planning Country, Sector 6, Anaiyur, Koodalpudur - Anaiyur, Madurai 625 017.

¶13

The Executive Engineer (Planning), Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Thallakulam, Madurai 625 002.

¶14

1/6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

WP(MD). No.1203 of 2025

¶17

The Assistant Commissioner, Zone-2 (North), Madurai City Corporation, K.Pudhur, Madurai 625007.

¶18

Saravanan,

¶19

Saravana Multi Speciality Hospital, Door No.7-A,Maruthu Pandiyar Nagar 4th Main Road, Ward No.26, Zone 2 (North), Madurai City 625 002. ... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 6 herein to take appropriate action against the unauthorized construction and building violation made by the 7^th respondent hospital under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 on the basis of the representation of the petitioner dated 17.08.2023.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.J.M.Arvind Pawlraj For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mrs.S.Devasena for R3,R4 and R6

¶22

ORDER

¶23

By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

2/6

¶26

WP(MD). No.1203 of 2025

¶27

Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the 7^th

¶28

respondent, notice to the 7^th respondent is dispensed with.

¶29

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a mandamus to direct the respondents Nos.1 to 6 herein to take appropriate action against the unauthorized construction and building violation made by the 7^th respondent hospital under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 on the basis of the representation of the petitioner dated 17.08.2023.

¶30

In order to take appropriate action against the unauthorized construction, the petitioner has given a representation to the official respondents on 17.08.2023. Since the said representation has not been considered so far, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

¶31

It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to Statutory Authorities, there is a duty cast upon them to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one

¶32

3/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

WP(MD). No.1203 of 2025

¶35

way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶36

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the 3^rd respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2023, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the private respondent as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the concerned respondents to consider the same on its own merits.

¶37

4/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

WP(MD). No.1203 of 2025

¶40