P.Sadagopan v. The Union of India

Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR AND C.M.P.Nos.26038 and 26180 of 2023 W.A.No.3177 of 2023

¶1P.Sadagopan

¶2R.Chandramurthy

¶3S.Markandan

¶4M.Padmaja

¶5S.Balachandran … Appellants -vs-

¶1The Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distributions, Government of India, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110001.

¶2The Union of India, Rep. by The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶3The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 003. Page2 of 7

¶4The Food Corporation of India Rep. by the Managing Director, Head Quarters, 16-20 Barakamba Lane, New Delhi - 110 003.

¶5AR Sampathraghavan … Respondents W.A.No.3202 of 2023

¶1V.Malayappan

¶2R.Parthasarathy

¶3A.Andreas

¶4A.Somasundaram

¶5N.Anbalagn

¶6C.Ramachandran

¶7V.Adiseshan

¶8C.P.Sukumar

¶9V.Nagarajan

¶10N.Lakshmi ..Appellant(s) -vs-

¶1The Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distributions, Government of India, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.

¶2The Union of India Rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110 001.

¶3The Union of India, Rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners welfare, 3rd floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 003. Page3 of 7

¶4The Food Corporation of India Rep. by the Managing Director, Head Quarters, 16-20 Barakamba Lane, New Delhi - 110 003.

¶5M.Veeraraghavan

¶6R.Thiagarajan

¶7M.Panneerselvam … Respondents W.A.No.3177 of 2023 Prayer: To set aside the order 20.07.2023 made in W.P.No.14295 of 2022 on the file of this Hon'ble Court. W.A.No.3202 of 2023 Prayer: To set aside the order 20.07.2023 made in WP.No. 11214 of 2022 on the file of this Hon'ble Court. Case No. For Appellants For Respondents W.A.No.3177 of 2023 Mr.G.Ethirajulu Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy, CGC for R1 to R3 Mr.C.Chandrasekar

for FCI / R4 For R5 – No Appearance W.A.No.3202 of 2023 Mr.G.Ethirajulu Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy, CGC for R1 to R3 Mr.C.Chandrasekar

for FCI / R4 For R5 to R7 – No Appearance C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The issue mainly raised in the present Intra Court Appeal instituted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is as to whether High Page4 of 7 Court in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue directions to dispose of representation submitted by writ petitioners in the absence of establishing legal right and in a routine manner.

¶2Even for issuance of direction to consider the representation, person approaching Court must establish his right or infringement of right. High Court in exercise of powers of judicial review is not expected to issue direction even to consider representation to Authorities without examining rights involved as well as subject matter, so as to ascertain whether grievance addressed by writ petitioner would fall within the realm of powers of judicial review.

¶3Issuing direction to consider the representation blindly would not only cause prejudice to Government Authorities, but also would pave way for considering those claims on extraneous considerations. There is a possibility of using High Court's order for creating files or to achieve one's goal in an indirect manner. High Court, while entertaining writ petition is expected to ascertain rights of persons and to ensure that direction issued to consider the representation would fall within the realm of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Page5 of 7 Constitution of India.

¶4Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. and others

1 held as follows: "37 (c) Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending;

¶5In the present case, Writ Court considered the grievance of appellants and their primary grievance is that proposal submitted in the year 2014 for amendment has not been fructified. Appellants have sent several representations and Authorities have not considered the same. Writ Court made a finding that Writ of mandamus directing respondent to send notes of internal communication for amendment of the Act cannot be issued. Materials and submissions made before Writ Court was that the amendment to be brought in the Food Corporation of India Act by taking note of certain official communications addressed on the basis of their representations. Such a grievance may be addressed to competent Authorities, but would not constitute a ground to entertain writ petition, by High Court. Thus, writ petition is misconceived as rightly held by Writ Court, which does not warrant any interference by this 12024 INSC 150 Page6 of 7 Court. S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,J. AR Consequently, the present Writ Appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 30-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AR To:

¶1The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶2The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 003.

¶3The Managing Director, Food Corporation of India Head Quarters, 16-20 Barakamba Lane, New Delhi - 110 003. Page7 of 7