Disposed

P.Balakumar v. The Commissioner

Madras HC21 Mar 2025WP(MD)/7874/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking a direction to the Tahsildar to issue a legal heirship certificate on the petitioner's application and representations. The court held that a statutory authority must consider such representations on merits and directed the Tahsildar to decide within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to fourth respondent (Tahsildar) to consider the application and representations and pass orders in accordance with law within one month.

P.Balakumar Vs The Commissioner — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.7874 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.7874 of 2025

P.Balakumar

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

¶11

Chennai - 600 005.

¶12

2.The District Collector,

¶13

Madurai, Madurai District.

¶14

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶15

4.The Tahsildar,

¶16

Madurai South, Madurai District.

¶17

5.The Revenue Inspector, Sathamangalam, Easwara Hospital, Thallakulam, Madurai District - 625 002.

¶18

6.The Village Administrative Officer, North Madurai Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶19

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶20

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

¶21

PRAYER:

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.7874 of 2025

¶23

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the fourth respondent to issue legal heir certificate, based on the petitioner's application dated 13.12.2024, followed by the petitioner's representations dated 03.02.2025 and 10.02.2025.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Villavan Kothai

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan Additional Government Pleader

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the fourth respondent to issue legal heirship certificate, based on the petitioner's application dated 13.12.2024, followed by his representations dated 03.02.2025 and 10.02.2025.

¶28

2 . With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶29

3 . Alleging that the application and the representations made by the petitioner seeking issuance of legal heirship certificate of his deceased father, N.Pandi, who died on 29.02.1980, has not been considered so far, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶30

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.7874 of 2025

¶33

4 . Heard both sides.

¶34

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

¶35

6 . In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the fourth respondent herein to consider the petitioner's application dated 13.12.2024, followed by his representations dated 03.02.2025 and 10.02.2025, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its

¶36

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.7874 of 2025

¶39

views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the fourth respondent to consider the same on its own merits.

¶40

7 . With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There

¶41

shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

NCC : Yes / No 21.03.2025 Index : Yes / No smn2

¶43

To:-

¶44

1.The Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶45

2.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶46

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶47

4.The Tahsildar, Madurai South, Madurai District.

¶48

5.The Revenue Inspector, Sathamangalam, Easwara Hospital, Thallakulam, Madurai District - 625 002.

¶49

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.(MD)No.7874 of 2025

¶52

6.The Village Administrative Officer, North Madurai Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.

¶53

_____________ Page 5 of 6_

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.(MD)No.7874 of 2025

¶56

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶57

smn2

¶58

W.P.(MD)No.7874 of 2025

¶59

21.03.2025

¶60

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶61

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

P.Balakumar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Balakumar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kala Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer

Francis Vs The Commissioner

The Superintending Engineer Vs Mjd Construction and Engineering Contractors (P) Ltd.

M/s.Arputham Transport Vs The State Tax Officer

Tvl. High Power Hotel International Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Victoria Joseph Vs The Commissioner