M.N. Murthy and others vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 12682/2020. Decided on 2 December 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/352114/1/WP12682-20-02-12-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 2. As far as a writ of mandamus is concerned, the well settled law has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and others –vs- Union of India. (1974) 2 SCC 630 Paragraphs-24 and 25 of the said judgment read thus:
“24. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial proceeding was before the High Court. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well recognized rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Edn.), Vol.13, p: 106): “As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal.”
25. In the cases before us there was no such demand or refusal. Thus, no ground whatsoever is shown here for the issue of any writ, order, or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. These appeals must be and are, hereby, dismissed but in the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.”
3. As far as a writ of mandamus is concerned, a High Court can issue such a writ enjoining the respondents to perform their statutory duty. However, the condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court for seeking a writ of mandamus is that the petitioner must demand justice and seek compliance of statutory obligations of the respondents.
4. When the question of making such a demand arises, the same has to be made to the authority, which is under the legal obligation to do or not to do a particular act. For example, if a grievance of writ petitioner is about the failure of a municipal corporation to take action of demolition of an illegal construction, naturally the demand in writing has to be made to the competent authority under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, which is empowered to take action of demolition. If the representation is made to an authority which is not competent to take action as demanded in the representation, the said authority is not under an obligation to act as per the representation.
5 & 6. The well settled rule is that ordinarily while filing legal proceedings, if more efficacious relief can be sought by a litigant, he must seek that relief. The representation has to be addressed only to the authority which is under a legal obligation to take action.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal
Daksha Legal 