1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.3284 of 2011 M.Krishnan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District. 2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, (National Rural Employment), Tuticorin. 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Power Pump), Office of the District Collector, Tuticorin. 4.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Office of the Assistant Director, Panchayats, Town Panchayat, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli. 5.The Executive Engineer, Srivaikundam Town Panchayat, Srivaikundam. ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to disburse the sum of Rs.2,28,165/- for completion of work issued in work order Na.Ka.No.S.E.627/93 dated 10.04.1993 and work order No.627/93 dated 31.03.1994 as per the measurement book No.1/92-93 counter signed by the second respondent with a nominal rate of interest. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Chellathurai For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Addl.Govt.Pleader O R D E R The petitioner who is a contractor was granted a contract by proceedings dated 10.04.1993. As there was no funds, the work was suspended in between and for the completion of the work done https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 by the petitioner, a sum of Rs.1,17,403/- was to be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner would further contend that as per the technical advice given to the respondents, the petitioner was requested to complete the remaining work also and the same was also noted in M.Book on 07.08.1994, which is counter signed by the respondents. Thereafter, he made many representations to pay the amount as per the M.Book in respect of the work carried out by him. In toto, a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- was to be paid and out of which, Rs.1,17,403/- was already paid by the respondents and a balance of Rs.74,115/- has to be paid by the respondents. In the mean while, the respondents alloted another work order to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- and the same was recorded in the Measurement Book No.1/92-93 indicating that the work to the value of Rs.1,54,050/- has been done by the petitioner. Even that amount also has not been paid. Thus, the respondents are liable to pay a total sum of Rs.2,28,165/- for the work carried out by the petitioner from 1993 to 1995. Despite many reminders and representations, the amount has not been paid by the respondents. The last representation was made on 15.10.2010. Now, he wants a Mandamus from this Court to consider him claim along with nominal interest. 2. Learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that as per the communication dated 19.01.2011, there was a reply to the earlier representation made by the petitioner, wherein they have clearly pointed out that it is a stale claim, that too, after 14 years and the files relating to the work executed by the petitioner were not available. In spite of the fact that reply was given, he has chosen to file this Writ Petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of latches. Further, the alleged claim made by the petitioner is a time-barred claim. Under the guise of a representation, he wants that his claim has to be revived after a quite long time and that he has not given any sufficient reasons for the so called delay, for claiming this amount after 18 years. Hence, this Writ Petition is not maintainable. Heard both sides. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the work done during the year 1993 to 1995, till date, the amount has not paid been paid. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not moved either this Court or any other forum available to him right from the year 1994- 1995. Even the representation was made originally in the year 2007 and by that time itself, it was replied that it is a stale claim and files were not available and even at that point of time, he has not come to this Court. After four years, he has now filed this Writ Petition and definitely, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of latches. Even otherwise, under the guise of representation what could not be considered by the authorities concerned or a stale claim is sought be claimed by way of a Writ Petition. In this connection, reference can be made to the decision reported in M.Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai & Others, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 reported in 2010-2-L.W.785, to which I was also a party. In the said judgment, we have culled out when Mandamus is to be given and on what occasions the innocuous prayer to consider and pass orders on representations leads to drastic consequences. Unfortunately, in spite of the ruling passed, this kind of frivolous petitions are being filed in huge numbers, time and again. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs. G.Srinivas Reddy, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 674 = 2006-3-L.W.170, had observed as follows:- “19. There are also several instances where unscrupulous peti- tioners with the connivance of "pliable" authorities have mis- used the direction "to consider" issued by court. We may il- lustrate 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 repre- sentation within a reasonable time, the person making the rep- resentation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to "consider" and dispose of the rep- resentation. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to "consider", the authority grants the relief, tak- ing 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 re- view, 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 unde- serving 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 of the court's direction to "consider" the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily-wagers seeking regulari- sation/absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a large-scale misuse of the orders "to consider". 6. Following the Apex Court's judgment cited supra, a Division Bench of this Court, in M.Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai & Others, reported in 2010-2-L.W.785, had in para 8 observed:- “.... 8. Why we are extracting this judgment in such detail is that we should be aware of the consequences of our order when we direct the authorities to "consider". In the aforesaid situation, if the learned Judge, before directing the authorities to consider, had heard the petitioner herein, then the order of the Division Bench reprimanding the 5th respondent would have been brought to the notice of the learned Single https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 Judge. Some time, we also come across cases where our directions is to an authority who cannot really pass an effective order and the effective order can only be passed by an authority superior to the one to whom we issue directions. Obviously, when the order is not complied with, since it cannot be complied with because of the hierarchy discipline, the officer has to face the contempt. All these can be avoided if we only bear in mind the guidelines given in the above case by the Supreme Court before we direct the respondent to "consider and pass orders". 5. In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands dismissed in limine as it is not maintainable. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District. 2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, (National Rural Employment),Tuticorin. 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Power Pump),Office of the District Collector, Tuticorin. 4.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Office of the Assistant Director, Panchayats, Town Panchayat, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli. 5.The Executive Engineer, Srivaikundam Town Panchayat,Srivaikundam. +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 7523 ssm SMA/21.04.2011/7C/4P W.P.(MD).No.3284 of 2011 22.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/