Mandamus for Timely Disposal of Administrative Representations Regarding Unauthorized Land Use and Noise Pollution.

The petitioners are residents of Indraprasth Duplex Phase-I, Raipur.

They alleged that Respondent No. 7 (M/s Panchamrit Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.) is operating 'Wonderland Water-Park' on approximately 19 acres of land allotted by the Raipur Development Authority (RDA) without proper authority.

The petitioners claimed the park causes daily noise pollution, creating significant difficulties for the residents.

Despite a representation submitted to the authorities on May 29, 2025, no action was taken.

Consequently, the petitioners filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for the authorities to decide their representation and take action based on previous departmental correspondence.

Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to decide the pending representation/complaint regarding the unauthorized operation and noise pollution of the water park in a time-bound manner.

The court's intervention was based on the principles of administrative law and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to issue directions to public authorities to perform their legal duties.

The court emphasized the procedural requirement for administrative bodies to consider and dispose of citizen representations regarding grievances in accordance with applicable laws, rules, and circulars.

The petitioners limited their prayer to a direction for the Raipur Development Authority (Respondent No. 2) to consider a fresh representation within a stipulated timeframe.

Counsel for the respondents did not oppose this limited prayer and assured the court that a fresh representation would be decided according to the law.

The court did not delve into the merits of the allegations concerning the legality of the water park's operations or the extent of noise pollution.

Instead, it focused on the administrative necessity of ensuring the grievances of the residents are formally addressed by the competent authority (RDA) rather than remaining stagnant.

The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 2 (CEO, Raipur Development Authority) within 15 days.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the said representation in accordance with applicable laws, rules, and circulars within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt.

All pending applications were also disposed of.