M.Ramesh Aravind vs. The Director Of Municipal Administration

Held

The Court held that when a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty cast upon that authority to consider it on its own merits and pass appropriate orders. The non-consideration of such a representation would amount to dereliction of duty, justifying the High Court's intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner, Tanjore Municipal City Corporation) to consider the petitioners' representation dated January 15, 2025, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the matter, leaving it open for the respondents to consider the same.

Facts

The petitioners, who are shop owners in the Ayyasamy Vandayar Old Bus Stand, Thanjavur, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. They contended that the monthly rent fixed for their shops, which were brought for public auction, was exorbitant, including an 18% GST component. The petitioners had made a representation to the respondents (Director of Municipal Administration and the Commissioner, Tanjore Municipal City Corporation) on January 15, 2025, seeking a fair rent fixation. As their representation remained unconsidered, they approached the High Court seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider their representation and fix fair rent within a stipulated time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing statutory authorities to consider a representation seeking fair rent fixation for shops, particularly when an alleged exorbitant rent with GST is being charged? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that statutory authorities have a duty to consider representations made to them on their merits. They contended that the non-consideration of their representation amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying the invocation of the High Court's extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They sought a direction for the respondents to consider their representation dated January 15, 2025, and fix fair rent. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents regarding the merits of the rent fixation or the GST component. Their participation appears to have been in response to the writ petition seeking a directive for consideration of the representation.