Michael Rajkumar vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And C.Excise

Held

The Court held that it is justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct a statutory authority to consider a representation. The Court reasoned that statutory authorities have a duty to consider representations made to them on their own merits and pass appropriate orders, rather than keeping them pending indefinitely. Failure to do so constitutes a dereliction of duty. Therefore, the Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated August 9, 2023, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any views on the merits of the petitioner's claim. The ratio decidendi is that non-consideration of a representation by a statutory authority is a failure to perform its statutory duty, which can be remedied by a writ of Mandamus.

Facts

The petitioner, Michael Rajkumar, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and C.Excise, Kovilpatti Division, to consider his representation dated August 9, 2023. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is the statutory authority to whom the representation was made. The procedural history is that the petitioner made a representation, and the respondent had not yet passed any order on it. The matter was taken up for final disposal by consent of both parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court is justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct a statutory authority to consider a representation when there is a duty cast upon the authority to do so. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that when a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty to consider it on its own merits and pass appropriate orders. Non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying judicial intervention. Respondent's Argument: The respondent did not present any arguments against the consideration of the representation. The judgment notes that the matter was taken up for final disposal by consent of both parties, implying no opposition to the direction sought.