The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for expedited disposal of succession proceedings. The court held that without a statutory duty and failure to discharge it, mandamus cannot be granted. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the petitioner's right to approach the court again if inordinate delay occurs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.427 OF 2021(C)
PETITIONER:
MADHAVI
AGED 76 YEARS NEDUVAKKADU, KINASSERY P.O., KANNADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
RESPONDENT:
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR), OTTAPALAM, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR) OTTAPALAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679104.
BY SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY-SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.427 OF 2021(C)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is a senior citizen, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to conduct expeditious enquiry and dispose proceedings numbered as S.M.No.01/2021 on the files of the respondent within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court.
WP(C).No.427 OF 2021(C)
3
application before the respondent for purchase certificate, as evidenced by Ext.P1 receipt dated 01.01.2021.
“15. 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. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of
WP(C).No.427 OF 2021(C)
4
their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. (See Lekhraj Satramdas, Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cummanaging Officer and Ors. [1966]1 SCR 120: AIR 1966 SC 334. Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 144: (1962) SC 1210 and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1973 1 SCC 485: AIR 1973 SC 964. In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent No.1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable, Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent No.1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same.”
supra, at this point of time the petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus for a time bound consideration of S.M.No.01/2021.
WP(C).No.427 OF 2021(C)
5
Court again, in case there is inordinate delay on the part of the respondent in taking a final decision in S.M.No.01/2021.
Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioner.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
JUDGE
JV
WP(C).No.427 OF 2021(C)
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 01.01.2021 SHOWING THE SUO MOTU NO.01/2021 ISSUED FROM THE RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus for time-bound consideration of administrative proceedings lies when there is no statutory duty imposed on the respondent officer.
Whether the petitioner can be allowed to withdraw the writ petition without prejudice to the right to approach the court again in case of inordinate delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi SinghDistinguished¶25
Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145] · Who else cites this
Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cummanaging OfficerReferred¶25
Lekhraj Satramdas, Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cummanaging Officer and Ors. [1966]1 SCR 120: AIR 1966 SC 334 · Who else cites this
Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda CollegeReferred¶25
Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 144: (1962) SC 1210 · Who else cites this
Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of BiharReferred¶25
Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1973 1 SCC 485: AIR 1973 SC 964 · Who else cites this
MADHAVI
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR), OTTAPALAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
