INTRODUCTION

The writ of mandamus is a judicial order from the Supreme Court or High Court to a constitutional, statutory, or non-statutory agency. To compel or restrain an agency from an act it is legally obligated to perform or avoid as a public duty.

The writ of mandamus is often considered as a residue remedy of public law. This remedy is sought when justice is denied and dates back to the Norman Conquest of England. However, the writ of mandamus only in the early part of the eighteenth century came to be frequently used in public law to compel performance of public duties.

CONDITION FOR TE GRANT OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Common Law Duty or Mandamus?

Until recent times the law provided that the writ of mandamus would lie only to enforce a duty which is public in nature, so a private in nature and arising out of a contract was not enforceable through the writ of mandamus. Thus, in state of ITC v. State of Madras, the court denied mandamus as the obligation arose from a contract.

Gujarat State Financial Cooperation Workers v. Lotus Hotels

But as the case of Gujarat State Financial Cooperation Workers v. Lotus Hotels, Private Limited, the Supreme Court issued the rate of mandamus for specific performance of contract to advance money. A public duty is regarded to be a duty which is created either by the statute, rules, or regulations having the force of law, the constitution or by some rule of common law.

The public duty must be an absolute duty. In order to be informal through the writ of mandamus, and an absolute duty cannot be a discretionary duty.

Manjula Manjuri v. Director of Public Instruction

In Manjula Manjuri v. Director of Public Instruction, the court denied mandamus as the duty was discretionary, not absolute.
In some cases, it applies even when the state’s duty is discretionary. But it is obliged to exercise discretion under law. This remedy would also lie to exercise it in one way or the other. It can also be issued if the public authority invested with this powers abuses such discretionary power or exceeds it.

Mandamus compels public duties, whether administrative, ministerial, or statutory. “Public duty” does not require the responsible person or institution to be a public official. Thus, this can be issued against a statutory company to enforce its public responsibilities. This remedy can be issued against a private individual to enforce public duties.

There must be a specific demand and refusal for writ of Mandamus

In order to use the writ of mandamus, there must exist a specific demand and the denial of that specific demands by the authorities. In Naubat Rai v. Union of India, it was denied as the petitioner didn’t seek reinstatement after illegal dismissal.
However, it should be noted that an expressed demand and refusal are not necessary.

Venugopalan v. Commissioner Vijayawada Municipality

In the case of Venugopalan v. Commissioner Vijayawada Municipality, the court issued this remedy as it observed that there existed an inferred demand and refusal from the situation in which the petitioner filed suit for injection, restraining the municipality from holding elections, which was contested by the municipality.

There must be a clear right to enforce writ of Mandamus

This remedy cannot be granted in cases where the applicant does not have a right to compel the performance of a duty cast on the authority. The court denied mandamus as the petitioner lacked a clear right to college admission.

Union of India v. Orient enterprises

The court denied mandamus as the petitioner lacked a statutory right to interest on delayed refunds under the Customs Act.

Kalyan Singh v. the state of Uttar Pradesh

In the case of Kalyan Singh was the state of Uttar Pradesh, the court observed right to enforce a duty exist till the date of the petition. If such right to enforce, a duty has terminated before the filing of the petition, this remedy cannot be issued. So this can be issued only in case of existing statutory right.

KN Guruswami v. State of Mysore

In KN Guruswami v. State of Mysore, the court ruled that anyone affected by power abuse can seek mandamus, even without a substantive right. Therefore, default a person can enforce a public right, which does not specifically belong to any individual thus can also be issued on petition. Also, be issued on petition of a taxpayer to restrain a municipality from this allocation or misappropriation of public funds.

The right must be substituting on the date of the petition

The writ of mandamus is granted only for existing statutory rights, not past or future rights.

Director of Settlements v. Mr Apparao

In the case of Director of Settlements v. Mr Apparao, the high court upheld the unconstitutionality of a law and directed interim payment. The Supreme Court upheld the law, allowing interim payment only until the director’s determination. The Supreme Court ruled that the high court erred in issuing mandamus for a right that did not exist at the time.

CONCLUSION

The writ of mandamus can be issued in all the cases where the writ of certiorari and the writ o prohibition can be issued. The writ of mandamus applies in cases of jurisdiction issues, natural justice violations, or legal errors on record. The writ of mandamus compels or restrains authority actions when necessary. It is observed that this judicial remedy is both positive and negative in nature as it can do the work of all the other writs. So, it is often regarded as a general remedy in administrative law.
The grant of this remedy like any other extraordinary remedy as it is a discretionary remedy.

Refusal of the Writ of Mandamus

The writ of mandamus can be refused on following grounds:

 On the ground of unreasonable delay in filing the petition

 On the ground that there is an adequate alternative remedy

 That the petition is premature

 On the ground that the issuance of the writ of mandamus would be in Infructuous and futile

 On the ground of equitable considerations, that is where there is a misstatement or suppression of facts in the petition.

 On the ground that the writ of mandamus is to be used go against the provision of any law
This judicial remedy can be denied it when it is found that was to be used in order to compel an authority to pass an order in violation of a statutory provision.

The court does not sit as a court of appeal in cases where it hears the Petition for this judicial remedy. Courts do not review the merits of a this writ and cannot override an authority’s discretion unless it is exercised illegally. This rule is applicable in case of other writs as well.
Presently the court has developed the concept of continuous mandamus in order to supervise the performance of duty ordered by the court.