1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).Nos.4849 & 4850 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 3 & 4 of 2011 1. S.M.S.Surraiya Beevi 2. S.M.S. Habeeb Muhammed Hussain 3. S.M.S. Habeeb Muhammed Mehboob 4. S.M.S. Pajjila Umma 5. S.M.S. Sathak Naina 6. S.M.S. Feroz Khan : Petitioner in both W.Ps. Vs 1. The District Collector Ramanathapuram District Collectorate Complex Pattanamkathan Ramanathapuram 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Ramanathapuram District Collectorate Complex Pattanamkathan Ramanathapuram 3. The Tahsildar Ramanathapuram District Collectorate Complex Pattanamkathan Ramanathapuram 4. Sornavalli : Respondent in W.P.(MD).No.4849/2011 1. The District Collector Ramanathapuram District Collectorate Complex Pattanamkathan Ramanathapuram 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Ramanathapuram District Collectorate Complex Pattanamkathan Ramanathapuram https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The Tahsildar Ramanathapuram District Collectorate Complex Pattanamkathan Ramanathapuram 4. The Commissioner Ramanthapuram Municipality Vandikara Street Ramanathapuram : Respondent in W.P.(MD).No.4850/2011 PRAYER IN W.P.(MD).No. 4849/2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in PTRs2007/509/d1416/1246/20-20 dated 08.03.2007 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent, unconstitutional and ultra vires and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to mutate revenue records on the basis of impugned order and in case any mutation has already taken place, restore and rectify the mutated revenue records in respect of S.No.66 /3 B of Sakkarakottai Village, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.06.2009 within a time frame after affording an opportunity to the parties and conducting enquiry. PRAYER IN W.P.(MD).No. 4850/2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to grant patta in favour of the petitioners considering their representation dated 9.2.2009 and rectify the mutated revenue records in respect of S.No.66/3A of Sakkarakottai Village, Ramanathapuram. For Petitioner in both W.Ps. : Mr.R.Ramadurai For 4th Respondent in W.P.4849/2011 : No appearance For other Respondents in both W.Ps. : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader C O M M O N O R D E R Mr.K.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent in both the Writ Petitions. By consent of both sides, these Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioners, aggrieved against the order of the Tahsildar, dated 08.03.2007 in respect of mutation of patta records, had made a representation, dated 02.06.2009, seeking to rectify the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 mistakes. The petitioners would contend that they alone are entitled for the patta and the names have been wrongly included. Since no orders have been passed, they have come forward with these Writ Petitions on the ground that their representation need to be considered. 3. At the admission stage itself, a specific question was put forward that even though he made a representation as early as on 02.06.2009 whether he has not preferred any appeal to the appellate authority. For which the answer was yes. He would only contend that his representation may be treated as an appeal. Unfortunately, under the guise of representation being heard, the petitioner wants to consider a matter which could not done and it should not be allowed to be considered. In fact such innaucous prayer seeking for consideration leads to disastrous consequences. Hence, such application cannot be entertained. As per the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner and others reported in 2010 – 2- L.W. 785 and the relevant portion runs as follows:- “There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of “pliable” authorities have misused the direction “to consider” issued by Court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time-barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to “consider” and dispose of the petition with a direction to “consider”, the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the Court directing him to “consider” the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order “to consider” as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to “consider”, may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view fo the Court's direction to “consider” the claim, or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 on account of collusion / connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily wagers seeking regularisation/absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a large-scale misuse of the orders “to consider”. 4. Here the petitioners only grievance is that they want to consider their representation even though the order is dated 08.03.2007 and the representation is of the year 2009, which is now sought to be considered and the same cannot be ordered at this point of time, as he has not preferred an appeal in time under the guise of representation, he now seeks to set aside the order, dated 08.03.2007 without any appeal. Hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 5. With the above said observation, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. It is always open to the petitioners to take necessary re-course available under law including an appeal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector Ramanathapuram District Collectorate Complex Pattanamkathan,Ramanathapuram 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Ramanathapuram District Collectorate Complex Pattanamkathan, Ramanathapuram 3. The Tahsildar Ramanathapuram District Collectorate Complex Pattanamkathan,Ramanathapuram 4. The Commissioner Ramanthapuram Municipality Vandikara Street,Ramanathapuram +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 15497 W.P.(MD).Nos.4849 & 4850 of 2011 27.04.2011 VSG SMA/19.05.2011/6C/4P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/