High Court Allows Writ Petition Directing Municipal Authorities to Consider Pending Tax Representations - Administrative Inaction Cannot Be Justified by Pendency of Judicial Proceedings - Mandamus Issued for Consideration Within 60 Days

Sub Category: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-02-23 00:09:13

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to direct municipal authorities to consider his representations dated 27.07.2017 and 10.08.2017 regarding adjustment of excess tax paid towards future tax payments. The respondents had not considered these representations for several years, citing pendency of the writ petition as justification. The Court rejected this contention, holding that mere pendency of writ petition does not operate as stay on statutory or administrative powers. The Court emphasized that authorities must consider representations and pass reasoned orders within reasonable time. The prolonged administrative inaction was held to be arbitrary and contrary to principles of good governance. The Court allowed the writ petition, issued mandamus directing respondent No.3 to consider the representations within 60 days, and also directed respondent No.1 to issue administrative instructions clarifying that pendency of writ petition cannot be ground to withhold consideration of representations.

Headnote

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru -- Petitioner sought mandamus directing municipal authorities to consider his representations dated 27.07.2017 and 10.08.2017 regarding adjustment of excess tax paid -- Respondents contended no orders were passed due to pendency of writ petition -- Court held pendency of writ petition does not relieve authorities of statutory obligations -- Authorities must consider representations and pass reasoned orders within reasonable time -- Administrative inaction for several years is arbitrary -- Directed respondent No.3 to consider representations within 60 days -- Also directed respondent No.1 to issue administrative instructions clarifying pendency of writ petition cannot be ground to withhold consideration of representations -- Writ petition allowed with mandamus issued

Premium Content

The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access key legal points

Issue of Consideration: Whether administrative authorities can justify non-consideration of representations by citing pendency of writ petition before the Court

Premium Content

The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access critical case issues

Final Decision

Writ petition allowed -- Mandamus issued -- Respondent No.3 directed to consider representations dated 27.07.2017 and 10.08.2017 within 60 days -- Respondent No.1 directed to issue administrative instructions within 4 weeks clarifying pendency of writ petition cannot be ground to withhold consideration of representations

2026 LawText (KAR) (01) 18

WP No. 31271 of 2018

2026-01-21

Suraj Govindaraj J.

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3379

Siddamallappa P.M. for petitioner, Chandini Singh for respondents 1 and 2, Subramanya R. for respondents 3 to 5

Sri. B.G. Srinivasa Rao

The Principal Secretary to Government Department of Housing and Urban Development, Government of Karnataka, The Director Municipal Administration, Tumkur, The Commissioner Tumkur Mahanagara Palike, Tumkur, The President Tumkur Municipal Corporation, Tumkur, The Revenue Officer Tumkur Municipal Corporation, Tumkur

Premium Content

The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access critical case indexes

Nature of Litigation: Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India seeking mandamus and certiorari

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeking mandamus directing municipal authorities to consider his representations regarding adjustment of excess tax paid

Filing Reason

Municipal authorities failed to consider representations dated 27.07.2017 and 10.08.2017 for several years

Previous Decisions

No orders passed on representations despite repeated requests

Issues

Whether administrative authorities can justify non-consideration of representations by citing pendency of writ petition Whether prolonged administrative inaction without passing orders on representations is arbitrary

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's representations remained pending without consideration for several years Respondents contended no orders were passed due to pendency of writ petition Court found respondents' submission untenable as pendency of writ petition does not relieve authorities of statutory obligations

Ratio Decidendi

Mere pendency of writ petition does not operate as stay on statutory or administrative powers -- Authorities must consider representations and pass reasoned orders within reasonable time -- Administrative inaction due to pending litigation is arbitrary and contrary to rule of law -- Mandamus can be issued to compel performance of statutory duties

Judgment Excerpts

It is trite law that the mere pendency of a writ petition does not, by itself, operate as a stay on the exercise of statutory or administrative powers, nor does it relieve the authorities of their obligation to perform duties vested in them under law Administrative authorities cannot cite the pendency of judicial proceedings as a justification for inaction, particularly when the grievance before the Court itself arises from such inaction due to non-consideration of such representations The conduct of the respondents in keeping the representations pending for several years without passing any order whatsoever is arbitrary and cannot be countenanced

Procedural History

Writ petition filed in 2018 -- Representations submitted in 2017 remained pending -- Preliminary hearing in 'B' Group -- Oral order passed on 21.01.2026