Writ of mandamus in administrative law

Writ of Mandamus

Writ of Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, public authority, or person to perform a public or statutory duty which they have failed or refused to perform.

Nature and Purpose:

It is issued to enforce the performance of public duties and to compel the authority to perform duties that it is legally obligated to do.

Mandamus cannot be issued to enforce private duties or to command discretionary acts, only to compel mandatory duties.

It ensures the functioning of the government and public officials in accordance with the law.

When is Mandamus issued?

The duty in question must be mandatory, not discretionary.

The duty must be public or statutory in nature.

The petitioner must have a clear legal right to the performance of the duty.

There must be no other adequate legal remedy available.

Important Case Laws on Writ of Mandamus

1. Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967 AIR 1857, 1968 SCR (1) 76)

Facts: The petitioner applied for electricity connection but the authority failed to provide it despite mandatory provisions under the Electricity Act.

Issue: Whether mandamus could be issued to compel the Electricity Board to provide the electricity connection.

Held: The Supreme Court held that since the Electricity Board had a statutory duty to provide connections, failure to perform this duty entitled the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus.

Significance: This case establishes that when a public authority has a statutory duty to perform an act (like providing electricity), failure to perform that duty can be remedied by mandamus.

2. Union of India v. S. L. Kapoor (1980 AIR 953, 1980 SCR (2) 350)

Facts: A government employee sought promotion which was withheld arbitrarily.

Issue: Whether mandamus can be issued to direct promotion.

Held: The Court held mandamus can be issued to enforce statutory duties or where a legal right exists, but not to direct promotions unless there is a clear legal entitlement.

Significance: This case clarified that mandamus cannot be used to interfere with discretionary decisions unless the discretion is exercised mala fide or without jurisdiction.

3. State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (AIR 1964 SC 72)

Facts: An authority failed to issue a license despite fulfilling the necessary conditions.

Issue: Whether mandamus could be issued to compel issuance of the license.

Held: Mandamus was issued as the authority had no discretion to withhold the license once all conditions were met.

Significance: Mandamus compels performance of duty where discretion is either not vested or where discretion has been exercised illegally or capriciously.

4. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 2036)

Facts: The petitioner was entitled to pension, but the pension was denied by the authority.

Issue: Whether mandamus could be issued to grant pension.

Held: The Court held that the right to pension was a legal right once the employee had fulfilled all conditions; hence mandamus could be issued to compel payment.

Significance: Reinforces that where a legal right exists, mandamus is an appropriate remedy.

5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 1086)

Facts: In an environmental case, the Supreme Court issued mandamus to close down hazardous industries violating pollution norms.

Issue: Whether mandamus could be issued for public interest environmental protection.

Held: The Court issued mandamus citing the public duty of the state to protect the environment and enforce laws.

Significance: Demonstrates the use of mandamus as a tool of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to enforce environmental laws.

Summary

Mandamus is a powerful writ in administrative law to ensure statutory duties are performed.

It safeguards legal rights by compelling public authorities to act as mandated by law.

It is not used to control discretionary powers but to prevent abuse or non-performance.

Case laws have refined the scope and limits of mandamus, balancing authority discretion and citizen rights.

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments