Venkatesh A Kademani vs. The Executive Engineer

Facts

The petitioner, Venkatesh A Kademani, a businessman, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench. He sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department, Sirsi Division, to consider his representation dated September 12, 2022. Through this representation, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 33,78,635/- towards GST at 12% for the financial years 2018-19 to 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the respondent had neither considered his representation nor passed any orders on it. The respondent, through the High Court Government Pleader, submitted that if reasonable time were granted, they would consider the petitioner's representation and address his grievance in accordance with the law.

Held

The Court held that the respondent authority had not yet considered the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2022. The Court directed the respondent to consider the said representation in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order or take steps to address the petitioner's grievance within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court reasoned that since the respondent had not yet considered the representation and was agreeable to doing so, a direction to that effect was appropriate. The ratio of the decision is that a statutory authority must consider representations made to it within a reasonable time. The operative direction was to consider the representation and pass an order within six weeks. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority has failed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 12.09.2022, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and administrative law? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the respondent had failed to consider his representation dated 12.09.2022, and had not passed any orders on it, necessitating the filing of the present writ petition. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, through the learned HCGP, conceded that they had not yet considered the representation and requested reasonable time to do so, assuring that the petitioner's grievance would be addressed in accordance with law.