P.Sankarraj vs. The Assistant Director / Member Secretary

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was rendered infructuous as the petitioner's representation had already been considered by the first respondent, and an order had been passed on May 5, 2025. The relevant portion of the order indicated that the petitioner's request for a layout approval for the property was considered in light of a civil suit (O.S.No.57/25) and that layout approval would not be granted without considering the suit's outcome. The Court noted that the petitioner's representation was also considered in light of the relevant government guidelines. Therefore, as the matter had been addressed by the authority, nothing further remained for adjudication by the High Court. The ratio decidendi is that once a representation has been considered and an order passed by the competent authority, a writ of Mandamus seeking to compel consideration of the same representation becomes infructuous. The operative direction was to close the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, P. Sankarraj, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to prevent the Assistant Director/Member Secretary, Town and Country Planning, Sivagangai District, from granting layout approval or planning permission for a property in Survey No. 223/12A, Soorakulam Village. The petitioner had made representations on March 27, 2025, and April 21, 2025. The official respondents informed the court that the petitioner's representation had already been considered, and an order was passed on May 5, 2025, which was communicated to the petitioner on May 8, 2025. The judgment does not specify the amount in dispute or the specific tax periods. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent consideration of the petitioner's representation by the authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the order passed by the first respondent on the petitioner's representation (Question of law)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to restrain the respondent from granting layout approval. The petitioner relied on their representations dated 27.03.2025 and 21.04.2025. Revenue/State's Contention: The official respondents argued that the petitioner's representation had already been considered, and an order was passed by the first respondent on 05.05.2025. They submitted that this order had been communicated to the petitioner. The respondents did not explicitly name any specific provisions, circulars, or precedents in their argument, but their submission was based on the administrative action taken.