Madasamy vs. The Commissioner

Held

The Court held that statutory authorities have a duty to consider representations made to them on their merits and pass appropriate orders, either way, instead of keeping them pending indefinitely. The Court found that the non-consideration of the petitioner's representations by the respondent authority amounted to a dereliction of duty. Consequently, the Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated March 3, 2023, and June 19, 2023, on their 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 respondent to consider the same. The ratio decidendi is that a statutory authority cannot indefinitely delay the consideration of a petitioner's legitimate representation, and failure to do so can be remedied by a writ of mandamus.

Facts

The petitioner, Madasamy, completed 23 works for the Respondent Municipality Office. Following completion, the petitioner submitted representations on March 3, 2023, and June 19, 2023, requesting the disbursement of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) at 1 percent, Additional Security Deposit (ASD) at 5 percent, and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) payment to the concerned department. As these representations remained unconsidered by the respondent authority, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent to consider and disburse the aforementioned amounts within a stipulated time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent, a statutory authority, has a duty to consider representations made by a petitioner regarding the disbursement of EMD, ASD, and GST payments for completed works? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that statutory authorities have a duty to consider representations made to them on their merits and pass appropriate orders, rather than leaving them pending indefinitely. The petitioner contended that non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty. The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.