C.Dora Christry v. The Chief Executive Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.05.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA and W.M.P(MD).No.10043 of 2024 C.Dora Christry The President, Marthandam Bee Keepers Co-Operative Society Limited, Vettuvenni Junction, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Chief Executive Officer Khadpi and Village Industries Board, Kuralagam, Chennai.

2.The Assistant Director Khadpi and Village Industries, Collectrate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

3.M.Ravichandran The Secretary, The Marthandam Bee Keepers Co-Operative Society Limited, No. 2050, Vettuveni, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.

1/5

4.The State Agmark Grading Laboratory, Regulated Market Campus, Gnaranvilai, Pacode Post, Kanyakumari District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to follow the standards and procedures in compliance with Agmark while procuring the honey form the bee keepers by considering the petitioner's representation dated 15.05.2024 within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents :

Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan for R1 to R3

O R D E R

Heard Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

2. The petitioner is the president of Marthandam Bee Keepers Co-operative Society Limited. The Society used to purchase honey from the bee keepers and after purifying the same, supplies honey and bee wax for various Companies. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third 2/5

respondent, who is the Secretary of the Society is pressuring her to procure honey without insisting upon the quality of honey. The petitioner opposed the same and in this regard, she has given various representations to the respondents. Last such representation was made on 15.05.2024. So far, no action has been taken. Hence, the writ petition.

3. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon them to consider the same on their own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty. The failure on the part of the Authority had prompted the petitioner to file this petition seeking relief through issuance of writ of mandamus. As the petitioner has made out a case for invoking the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respondents are required to be given with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner within a specified time frame.

3/5

4. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.05.2024 on their own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it is open to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the same on their own merits.

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 22.05.2024 NCC: Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mbi 4/5

R.N.MANJULA, J.

mbi 22.05.2024 5/5