1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.3170 of 2011 Veerapandiyan : Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 2. The Tahsildhar, Theni. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to survey and demarcate the land bearing Survey No. 219/E1 219 / E2, 219/C1 in the Oonchampatti Village, Theni District by taking into account the petitioner's representation dated 14.01.2010. For petitioner : Mr.A.Rajini For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner has come forward with this Petition praying to direct the second respondent to survey and demarcate the land bearing Survey No. 219/E1 219 / E2, 219/C1 in the Oonchampatti Village, Theni District by taking into account the petitioner's representation dated 14.01.2010. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who claims to be the Secretary of Aathi Thamilhar Peravai, Theni District, would submit in his affidavit that he has filed this Writ Petition in his capacity as Theni District Secretary of Aathi Thamilhar Peravai. He would further submit that for the benefit of the welfare of Arunthathiars, they have got lands in S.Nos. 219/E1, 219/E2, 219/2C1 in Oonchampatti Village, Theni District and the members have got relevant documents to show that they are the real owners. He would also submit that the lands have not been demarcated and surveyed and therefore, the petitioner took initiative to file an application to survey and demarcate the said lands and he sent a representations on 23.12.2010 to the first respondent and further representation, dated 14.01.2011, to the second respondent, since no action has been taken, he has come forward with this Writ Petition. 3. When this Court perused the representation, dated 14.01.2011, it is made by one individual, viz., Veerapandiyan, son of Mr.Veeran and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 contents of the representation runs as follows:- “,e;j rh;nt ek;ghpy; 219:E1, 219:E2, 219:C1 eh';fs ; gzk; fl;oa [k ; mse;J vy;iy Fwpj;J bfhLf;fg;gltpy;iy/ Vdnt ,k;kDit th';fpat[ld; jh';fs ; cldoahf nkw;fz ;l g[y vz;zpy ; cs;s epy';fis mse;J ehd;bfy;iy Fwpj;J jUkhW ntz;Lfpnwd;/ ,j;Jld; gzk; fl;oajw;fhd ryhd; , izj;Js ;nsd;.” An omnipotent order is sought in this representation by the petitioner to survey the entire lands in S.Nos. 219/E1, 219/E2, 219/2C1, without mentioning the exact extent nor the ownership of the property and no boundary has been mentioned. 4. In the affidavit, it is stated that it is for large number of persons and no writ will lie with an un-disclosed details and such innocuous form of representation cannot be directed to be considered 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 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”. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5. With the above said observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed No costs. It is always open for the petitioner to make a representation individually, if he is aggrieved. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 2. The Tahsildhar, Theni. +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.8480 W.P.(MD).No.3170 of 2011 vsg PA/06.06.2011/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/