Delay In Consideration Of Representations By Statutory Authorities Amounts To Dereliction Of Duty: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently observed that whenever complaints are made to the Statutory Authorities, they are expected to act upon the same and not keep it pending indefinitely. The authorities are expected to consider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders in reasonable time.Justice MS Ramesh of the Madurai Bench observed as follows:"It is needless to point out that whenever...
The Madras High Court recently observed that whenever complaints are made to the Statutory Authorities, they are expected to act upon the same and not keep it pending indefinitely. The authorities are expected to consider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders in reasonable time.
Justice MS Ramesh of the Madurai Bench observed as follows:
"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 the respondents 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 India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time."
In the present case, the petitioner had approached the court to direct the Deputy Collector/Regional Manager to consider the representation made by the petitioner and to conduct enquiry regarding 3,049 missing paddy bags which were stocked in the District Paddy Procurement Centre situated in Madurai District and to take steps to get back the same.
The court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits and and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
The court also observed that the merits of the representation made by the petitioner has to be considered by the respondent and that the order does not express the view of the court with respect to the representation.
Case Title: P Arumugam v. The General Manager(Administration) TNCSC and another
Case No: W.P (MD) 9789 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr M Sankar
Counsel for Respondents: Mr G Mohan Kumar, Standing Counsel