The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents to decide representations regarding property possession. The Court denied relief as the case involved a private respondent performing no public duty, and noted alternative civil or revenue court remedies were available. The writ petition was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10722 of 2023
Petitioner :- Dharm Veer Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner is before this Court seeking direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing contesting Respondents to decide the representations dated 04.02.2023 and 06.02.2023 moved by the petitioner.
At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the entire case has been set up by the petitioner against the private incumbent and as such, no interference is required in the matter.
A writ petition for enforcement of the extraordinary remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not ordinarily maintainable for such reliefs against persons, who do not have any public duties to perform. The legal position in this regard is that where the rights which are sought to be agitated, are purely of a private character, no mandamus can be claimed, and even if the relief is sought against the State or any of its instrumentality, the precondition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is a public duty. The petitioner has adequate and efficacious alternative remedies of approaching the civil or revenue courts, at the first instance for seeking the remedies.
Once such an objection has been made, this Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds substance in the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel as admittedly the case has been set up against the private respondent no. 6 and as such, in the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India no relief can be extended by this Court and in case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to possession over the property in dispute, he is at liberty to file a suit before the Court below.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.4.2023 A. Mandhani
Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can issue a writ of mandamus regarding disputes set up against a private respondent without public duty.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the grievance relates to possession of property where civil remedies exist.
Dharm Veer Chauhan
State Of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Manjive Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
