Read Time: 05 minutes

Justice Subramaniam of Madras High Court while dismissing a writ petition remarked that simply sending a representation through a registered post and filing a writ petition seeking a direction to consider the representation would result in inconvenience to the public administration.

Court further noted that there is a growing trend of sending representations and filing writ petitions seeking directions of the court to the authorities to consider the representation.

The judgment notes, “Such orders would not do any service to the cause of justice.” It is observed that such writ petitions results in multiplicity of proceedings. The judgment notes “Writ petitions after writ petitions are filed based on such directions. Otherwise, the litigants are working out in a corruptive manner to get a favourable order based on such direction to consider the representation.”

It further reads, "The court is of the opinion that in every writ petition, the issues are to be decided on merits and the rights of the parties are to be crystallized, enabling the authorities to grant the relief in accordance with law."

Court also advised the litigants to pursue the matter in accordance with law by following the procedures and not simply send a representation through registered post and file a writ petition seeking a direction to consider the same. Court held, "Considering the responsibility and workload of the Government officials, if hundreds or thousands of representations are sent in such a manner, it may not be possible for the Department officials to verify and pass order within a short span of eight or twelve weeks."

Court observed that such directions then result in the litigants filing contempt applications.

Court further opined that asking the authorities to pass directions in a short span of time ends in a miscarriage of justice or causes prejudice to the interest of the litigants. "In some cases, the litigants are working out their remedy by abusing the orders of direction issued by the Courts to consider the representation in a corrupt manner and that such allegations cannot be brushed aside," Court stated.

The order notes “The reality is to be considered in a practical manner. High Court cannot close its eyes in respect of such happenings and any such orders or consideration must be in consonance with the societal implications.”  Court, therefore, held that exercise of restraint in issuing a direction to consider the representation is certainly required at all circumstances.

Case title: Pacha Muthu Poosali Vs Joint Commissioner