Competent authorities must decide pending representations in accordance with law within 45 days.

The petitioner challenged the recruitment and continued functioning of private respondent Chudamani Chandra as Retailer/Vendor and In-charge Manager of Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti, Nandeli, Registration No. 1074, District Sakti.

The petitioner asserted that the recruitment was made contrary to the prescribed procedure and that the Deputy Registrar had, by order dated 24 November 2017, declared the recruitment void and cancelled the post of Vendor. Despite this, the private respondent allegedly continued to manage the Fair Price Shop. A subsequent show-cause notice dated 11 July 2023 was issued, but no final action was allegedly taken. The petitioner stated that several representations seeking action had remained undecided.

Whether the competent authorities should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representations concerning the alleged illegal recruitment and continuation of the private respondent.

Whether such representations should be decided within a specified period and in accordance with law, without the High Court expressing an opinion on the merits.

The Court applied the administrative-law principle that a competent statutory or administrative authority must consider and decide a pending representation in accordance with law, particularly where the grievance concerns an allegedly invalid appointment and prior departmental proceedings.

The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to issue a limited mandamus for consideration and decision of the representations. No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was relied upon in the order.

The petitioner alleged that the private respondent’s recruitment had already been declared void by the Deputy Registrar and that subsequent proceedings, including the show-cause notice, had not culminated in a final decision.

However, the petitioner did not press the substantive reliefs at the hearing and limited his request to the consideration of his representations. Since the respondents raised no objection to this limited relief, the Court considered it appropriate to direct the competent authorities to examine and decide the representations in accordance with law, while preserving the authorities’ discretion on the merits.

It expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s allegations or the validity of the private respondent’s recruitment. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.