1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD)No.3963 of 2011 S.Chandrasekar : Petitioner Vs 1.The Tashildar,Palayamkottai. 2.Ramesh : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.03.2011 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner : M/s.P.Bhaskar Associates For Respondent 1 : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader For Respondent 2 : No appearance ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the second respondent is the own brother of the petitioner, who is claiming unfounded right, whereas they have all got a joint family right over the property as co-owners. He would contend that the second respondent has made patta application for the property in question in his sole name. For which, the petitioner has made objection with the first respondent for granting patta in the sole name of the second respondent. Even though the petitioner has sent his objection on 17.03.2011, it was received by the Tahsildar on 21.03.2011. He would only contend that the Tahsildar has not taken any action. Hence, he has come come forward with this writ petition for the relief as stated above. 2. Such applications are unfortunately filed time and again in spite of this Court's repeated directions that a person should not approach this Court immediately after sending a representation or an objection even before it reaches the office in the usual course. Admittedly, this case relates to civil dispute in nature where the petitioner claims a joint family right and he made an objection with the Tahsildar for granting patta. For patta proceedings, he has always got a legal right to approach the Tahsildar by letting in evidence. When such a proceeding is initiated, there is no need or necessity at this point of time for interference by the Court. Therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M.Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai & Others, reported in 2010-2-L.W.785, to which I was also a party. In the said decision, following the Supreme Court decision, this Court has held that an application that could not even be considered, cannot be directed to be considered by the authority. Therefore, very strongly opposes the application of this nature and the maintainability of the application also 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 petitioners with the connivance of "pliable" authorities have misused the direc- tion "to consider" issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time- barred or untenable, is put forth in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the per- son making the representation approaches the High Court with an in- nocuous prayer to direct the authority to "consider" and dispose of the representation. When the court disposes 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 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. Representa- tions 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". 3. 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 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". 4. In view of the above decisions, I am of the considered view that the writ petition is not at all maintainable and it has to be dismissed in limini. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. But, it is always open to the petitioner to appear before the Tahsildar and agitate his case on merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /TRUE COPY/ Assistant Registrar To The Tashildar,Palayamkottai. Srm Order made in W.P.(MD)No.3963 of 2011 PA/04.05.2011/2P/2C 05.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/