Dismissed

Dev Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2019WRIC/25957/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a writ of mandamus is not maintainable for initiating a departmental inquiry as it is a factual dispute for civil/criminal remedy, without a statutory duty. The petition seeking restoration of possession and damages was dismissed due to alternative remedies.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed as alternative remedy was available, and mandamus cannot compel disciplinary inquiry.

Dev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25957 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Dev Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaushlendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the record.

¶6

Petitioners are seeking a mandamus commanding respondent-3 to restore possession of petitioners over disputed land whereon according to him some construction was existing, which was demolished and also pay damages and also initiate inquiry against respondents-3, 4 and 5.

¶7

So far as alleged demolition and restoration of possession is concerned, these are factual dispute, for which remedy lies in common law by filing suit for restoration of possession and claiming damages, if any. So far as departmental inquiry is concerned, counsel for petitioners despite repeated query could not show any provision under which petitioners have any right to seek initiation of departmental inquiry against individual officials. If individual officer has done something wrong, it is open to petitioners to initiate criminal and civil proceedings, as the case may be, but a mandamus for initiating disciplinary inquiry cannot be sought as petitioners have no such statutory right which they are enforcing and respondents are not under any statutory corresponding obligation to do or not to do the same.

¶8

It is well settled that a writ of mandamus would lie only if petitioner is enforcing a legal right, and respondents are under a

¶9

statutory obligation to do or not to do something.

¶10

In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and another (2008) 2 SCC 280 Apex Court after referring to its earlier judgments in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh (1977) 4 SCC 145; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani Vs. N.M. Shah, AIR 1966 SC 334, and Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs. State of Bihar 1993(1) SCC 485 observed as under:

¶11

"There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation."

¶12

Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

¶13

Order Date :- 12.9.2019 KA

Dev Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Narendra Traders Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Nayan Dwivedi Vs Naval Dey Bharti and 2 Others

Neelam Widge Vs Dinesh Widge

Raj Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kamla Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others