The High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition in the preliminary stage, holding that a mandamus directing respondents to merely 'consider' a representation is not maintainable when the relief claimed is not efficacious and the demand was not made to the competent authority.
Writ petition declined to be entertained and rejected.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S.OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.12682 / 2020 (LB-BMP) PIL
BETWEEN
2
Bangalore-560 003.
(BY Sri.Balraj.K.N, Advocate)
AND:
3
Nr.Bashyam Park Bangalore-560 003.
(By Smt.Vani.H, AGA for R-1)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution Of India, praying to direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.09.2020 Annexure-C, etc.,
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, through Video Conferencing, Chief Justice made the following:
O R D E R
This is one of those several cases where a writ
of mandamus is sought only for directing the
4
respondents in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide a representation made by the petitioner.
“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
1 (1974) 2 SCC 630
5
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.”
(Underlines supplied)
6
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
7
competent to take action as demanded in the representation, the said authority is not under an obligation to act as per the representation.
legal proceedings, if more efficacious relief can be sought by a litigant, he must seek that relief.
8
efficacious relief of preventing the respondents from causing any damage to the football ground and the garden. However, that relief is not claimed though on 11th of November 2020, we had granted time to the petitioners to apply for amendment. But, the petitioners have not chosen to apply for the amendment.
writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner cannot be entertained.
accordingly rejected.
9
filing a fresh petition seeking appropriate reliefs.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
KNM/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued when the petitioner has not made a proper legal demand to the competent authority with clear knowledge and refusal?
Whether the petitioners were required to seek more efficacious relief instead of merely directing the respondents to consider a representation?
Whether this writ petition seeking only consideration of a representation deserves to be entertained under Article 226?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and others vs Union of IndiaExplained¶37
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and others vs Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630 · Who else cites this
M.N. Murthy and others
The State of Karnataka and others
Abhay S.Oka
S.Vishwash Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
