The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that only existence of a legal right of a citizen and performance of any corresponding legal duty by the State or any public authority, could be enforced by issuance of a writ of mandamus.
The single-judge bench Justice Michael Zothankhuma observed that under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus, the aggrieved person must has a legal right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right has been infringed.
The Court went on to note that it cannot exercise powers under writ jurisdiction to enforce legal statutory duties of the State, which are 'expected' out of it but do not have any corresponding enforceable legal right qua the citizens.
"It should also be noted that this is not a perfect world. Many things which the State and it’s instrumentalities are expected to perform as a legal duty and have to in terms of statutes are not being done", the Court remarked.
It was of the view that if the scope of the writ jurisdiction expands
to this, the Courts shall be full of cases having nothing to do with
the applicants.
"If persons are allowed to file writ petitions, praying for a writ of mandamus in respect of alleged breach of legal statutory duties, without having any corresponding enforceable legal right on the part of the applicant, the Courts would be a chock-a-block with cases, having nothing to do with the applicants. The same could/would lead to busybodies filing a deluge of writ petitions, which would not be in consonance with the judgments of the Apex Court in Director of Settlements, A.P. & Others Vs. M.R. Apparao & Other (supra) and Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra)".
The present writ petition prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondent authorities, to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings and Criminal Proceedings against the respondent-informant and other persons, involved in obtaining the Schedule Tribe (Plains), ST (P), certificate in favour of his daughter in terms of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner , 1994 Latest Caselaw 439 SC wherein the Apex Court stream-lined the procedure for issuance of a social status certificate, their scrutiny and approval and held that in case the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/ guardian/ the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim.
It was further prayed that the respondent-informant should be prosecuted for commission of an offence under Section 191, 193 and 195 IPC, i.e., for giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence, for obtaining the ST (P) certificate for her daughter.
The issue before the Court to decide was whether a writ of mandamus will lie, in the absence of violation of any of the petitioner’s legal or fundamental right?
The Court was of the view that no criminal offence has been committed, in the respondent No. 6 trying to take the help of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts stated that the ultimate decision to be taken is that whether in any event in the hands of the Deputy Commissioner, who issues the caste certificate and the attempt by the respondent No. 6 to take the help of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court to her advantage, cannot tantamount to giving false evidence.
It referred to Dir. of Settlements, A.P. & Ors Vs. M.R. Apparao & ANR, 2002 Latest Caselaw 157 SC wherein it was primarily held that one of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is that the Court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right has been infringed.
It went on to cite different legal precedents reaffirming the same. It mentioned Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) V. Governing Body of the Nalanda College, wherein the Apex Court has held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statue imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce.
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2012 Latest Caselaw 637 SC wherein the Apex Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the applicant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. It also held
that the Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty, using it’s writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. Thus, the existence of such a right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Courts and that legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infractions of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. The Apex Court held that a legal right means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. The expression, ‘person aggrieved’ does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury. A person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one.whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized.
The Court was of the view that action under paragraph No. 13 (14) in Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) would only arise if the caste certificate was obtained by making a false claim which would be relatable to fraud, false statements or fabricating documents.
Noting that children can take the caste of their mothers in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat & Others, 2012 Latest Caselaw 50 SC
The court concluded that the petitioner has not been able to show that some legal right of his had been infringed, so as to enable him to file the present writ petition asking for a writ of mandamus.
"In the opinion of this Court, the prayer of the petitioner, praying for performance of a legal duty by the State, has to be first preceded by violation of an existing right of the petitioner and/or enforcement of his legal right, in terms of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Director of Settlements, A.P & Others (Supra)."
CASE TITLE: GAURAV UPADHYAY vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
CASE DETAILS: Case No. : WP(C)/1867/2022
CORAM: Justice Michael Zothankhuma
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.
0 Comments