The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced that prolonged inaction on pending administrative representations constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to fair hearing under Article 21. In a concise yet consequential order, the Court directed a competent authority to decide a petitioner’s representation within 60 days, citing a prior binding judgment that had already settled the legal position.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Muin Khan, had submitted a representation seeking relief or reconsideration of an administrative decision, likely related to service benefits or disciplinary proceedings. Despite the passage of time, no decision had been rendered, leaving his legal position in limbo.
Procedural History
- The petitioner’s representation remained pending for an unreasonable duration without any substantive response.
- He filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, invoking the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction.
- He relied on the Court’s earlier order dated 27.09.2025 in Ram Vishal Pateriya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., which had laid down a clear legal principle on the obligation of authorities to decide representations within a reasonable time.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the competent authority to decide his representation in accordance with the precedent set in Ram Vishal Pateriya, and to do so without further delay.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether administrative inaction on a pending representation, despite a settled judicial precedent on the same issue, violates the right to fair hearing under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the State’s failure to decide the representation amounted to a denial of procedural fairness. He contended that the Court’s prior order in Ram Vishal Pateriya had already established that such representations must be decided with reasoned orders, and that the petitioner’s case was squarely covered by that ruling. He emphasized that delay itself becomes a denial of justice when a legal position is settled.
For the Respondent/State
The Government Advocate did not dispute the applicability of the earlier order but offered no justification for the delay. No counter-argument was presented challenging the legal principle established in Ram Vishal Pateriya, nor was any reason given for the prolonged inaction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court did not engage in a fresh examination of the merits of the representation. Instead, it focused on the procedural obligation arising from the prior judgment. The Court observed that when a legal position has been authoritatively settled, administrative authorities are bound to apply it without requiring the affected individual to relitigate the same issue.
"Considering the fact that issue is already settled, therefore, writ petition is disposed of directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation of petitioner in the light of order dated 27.09.2025 passed in W.P.751/2020 by a reasonable and speaking order within a period of 60 days..."
The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim, but was enforcing the procedural duty to decide. The failure to act, even in the face of binding precedent, was treated as a breach of natural justice and Article 21. The Court emphasized that reasonable time is an essential component of fair procedure, and that delay without justification undermines public trust in administrative systems.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that administrative delay in deciding representations, when a legal position is settled, violates Article 21. It directed the competent authority to decide the representation within 60 days, applying the precedent in Ram Vishal Pateriya, and to issue a speaking order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Inaction Is a Violation of Natural Justice
- Practitioners must now treat prolonged silence on representations as a ground for immediate writ relief, even without proving substantive entitlement.
- A pending representation is not merely an administrative matter - it is a constitutional concern under Article 21.
- Authorities cannot evade responsibility by claiming "pending review" when a precedent is already on point.
Precedent Binding on Authorities, Not Just Courts
- The judgment establishes that binding judicial orders are not confined to litigation parties; they impose a duty on administrative bodies to apply them proactively.
- If a court has ruled on a legal issue affecting a class of persons, authorities must extend the benefit to all similarly situated individuals without requiring fresh litigation.
- This principle applies to service matters, pension claims, welfare schemes, and disciplinary proceedings.
60-Day Deadline Sets New Standard for Administrative Timeliness
- The 60-day timeline, while not statutory, now functions as a de facto benchmark for administrative decision-making in similar writ petitions.
- Failure to comply may invite contempt proceedings or further judicial intervention.
- Practitioners should cite this order when opposing adjournments or delays in administrative hearings.
