Court affirms its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, prescribing strict timelines for consideration of pending representations with binding effect on subordinate authorities in administrative law matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/17807/2025 of ALOKE KUMAR BHATTACHARYA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0359862025 |
| Decision Date | 27-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner’s representation dated July 22, 2025 (annexure p-13) had not been considered by respondent no. 4, prompting a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for mandamus to compel administrative action. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms the High Court’s power under Article 226 to compel prompt administrative action via mandamus.
- Specifies a mandatory prior hearing notice of at least seven days before consideration of the representation.
- Imposes a six-week deadline for the authority to issue a reasoned order and a further two-week window to communicate it.
- Requires implementation of any favourable decision within four weeks of the reasoned order.
- Clarifies that such directions do not create indefeasible rights if the petition fails on merit upon fresh consideration.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The sole grievance identified was the non-consideration of the petitioner’s July 22, 2025 representation by respondent no. 4.
- The Court invoked its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to address administrative inaction where undue delay was evident.
- It directed respondent no. 4 to issue a prior hearing notice of at least seven days, ensuring fair opportunity to the petitioner.
- It mandated the passing of a reasoned order within six weeks from the date of communication of the order.
- It required communication of that reasoned order to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
- It further directed that, if the decision favored the petitioner, all consequential steps be taken within four weeks.
- The Court expressly refrained from adjudicating on merits, preserving the petitioner’s right to press all points before the authority.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The representation dated July 22, 2025 (annexure p-13) had remained pending without any decision by respondent no. 4, necessitating judicial intervention to secure a reasoned outcome.
Factual Background
The petitioner submitted a written representation to respondent no. 4 on July 22, 2025, which was not acted upon. As no decision followed, the petitioner filed WPA/17807/2025 under Article 226 seeking a mandamus. The respondents did not file affidavits, indicating non-admission of allegations. The High Court, without probing merits, directed structured timelines and procedural safeguards for consideration of the representation.
Procedural Innovations
- Introduction of a clear timeframe: six weeks to issue a reasoned order and two weeks to communicate it.
- Mandatory prior hearing notice of at least seven days to uphold principles of natural justice.
- A four-week deadline for implementation of any favourable order, ensuring prompt compliance by administrative authorities.