0

No writ in the nature of a mandamus would be issued when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty: High Court of Patna

Object of mandamus is to prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted. The well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by JUSTICE S. KUMAR in the case of Sobhit Raut vs. The State of Bihar [Case No.3309 of 2022] on 11.03.2022.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner prayed for issuance of mandamus commanding the respondent to issue specific direction for up gradation of Middle School, Parigama into High School, Parigama but the respondents contrary to its own letter issued did not upgrade the Parigama Middle School which was against the guide lines issued by the department which was in turn against the law as well as on fact. Therefore, petitioner seeks issuance of mandamus commanding the respondent to upgade the Parigama Middle School into High School on the ground that there is no High School situated near the village and all the High School are situated within 10 KM but the respondent upgraded the Middle School Chandra Sena into High School ignoring the necessity of the School of the said Panchayat.

The State’s counsel opposed the petition stating that the petition is misconceived. It was further contended that the raised disputed question of fact by petitioner is not in public interest and that the issue can be best resolved at the local level by the appropriate authorities.

The petitioner’s counsel stated that petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the authority concerned i.e. The Block Education Officer, Chouraut, Sitamarhi to consider and decide the representation which the petitioner shall be filing within a period of four weeks from today for redressal of the grievance.

The Court held that the petitioner shall approach the authority concerned within a period of four weeks from today by filing a representation for redressal of the grievance and the authority concerned shall consider and dispose it of expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of four months from the date of its filing. The Court observed that, “object of mandamus is to prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted. The well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Shristi Suman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat