Mandamus in administrative law
📘 Definition and Scope of Mandamus:
A writ of mandamus is issued by the High Courts under Article 226 and by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It compels the performance of a public legal duty which has not been performed.
Mandamus cannot be issued:
Against a private individual or body.
To enforce private contractual obligations.
When the duty is discretionary, not mandatory.
Against the President or Governors (Article 361).
Mandamus can be issued:
To compel public officers to do their duty.
To enforce the performance of statutory duties.
To prevent failure of justice.
🧾 Conditions for Issuance of Mandamus:
There must be a legal duty of a public nature.
The duty must be imperative and not discretionary.
The petitioner must have locus standi (right to request the writ).
There must be no adequate alternative remedy available.
The authority must have refused to perform its duty.
🏛️ Key Case Laws on Writ of Mandamus:
1. Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board, Kairana (1950 AIR 163)
✅ Facts:
The petitioner had a license to run a slaughterhouse, which was cancelled by the Municipal Board without giving any proper reason or following due process.
⚖️ Held:
The Supreme Court held that the Municipal Board had a statutory duty to renew the license if all conditions were fulfilled. The writ of mandamus was issued to compel the board to perform its public duty.
🔍 Importance:
This case established that a public authority cannot act arbitrarily and must perform its legal duties in accordance with the law.
2. Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (1983 AIR 848)
✅ Facts:
The Gujarat State Financial Corporation agreed to grant a loan to a company, but later refused to disburse the loan without valid reason, even though the company had fulfilled all conditions.
⚖️ Held:
The Supreme Court held that once a public corporation enters into a commitment under statutory powers, it is under a public duty to honor that commitment. A mandamus was issued directing the corporation to disburse the loan.
🔍 Importance:
This case expanded the scope of mandamus to include contractual obligations of statutory bodies, if they affect public interest or have a statutory flavor.
3. Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan (1986 AIR 537)
✅ Facts:
An IAS officer challenged the refusal of his promotion despite eligibility. The government had ignored the rules and recommendations of the selection committee.
⚖️ Held:
The Court held that mandamus can be issued not only to compel performance of a duty but also to correct arbitrary exercise of power.
🔍 Importance:
This case broadened the scope of mandamus to include correcting abuse of discretion by public authorities.
4. Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual (1969 AIR 1306)
✅ Facts:
An employee of a public corporation sought mandamus for enforcement of a service contract against his employer.
⚖️ Held:
The Supreme Court held that since the employer was a government-owned company but not performing a public duty in the employment contract, mandamus was not maintainable.
🔍 Importance:
This case clarified that mandamus cannot be used for enforcing private rights or contracts without statutory backing.
5. State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh (1989 AIR 997)
✅ Facts:
The state cancelled a lease granted to the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of being heard.
⚖️ Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that natural justice was violated, and the state had a legal duty to act fairly. Mandamus was issued directing the state to reconsider the matter after giving the petitioner a hearing.
🔍 Importance:
This case reinforced that mandamus can lie where due process and natural justice are not followed in administrative decisions.
6. Suganmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1965 SC 1740)
✅ Facts:
The petitioner sought refund of tax paid under a law declared invalid.
⚖️ Held:
The Supreme Court held that mandamus cannot be issued for recovery of money, unless the amount is recoverable under statutory duty.
🔍 Importance:
This case drew a line between ordinary monetary claims and enforceable statutory claims under public law.
🧠 Conclusion:
The writ of mandamus is a powerful tool in administrative law to ensure accountability of public bodies. It ensures that government authorities and public officers act within their legal boundaries, respect the rule of law, and do not arbitrarily deny rights or ignore duties.
Through various landmark judgments, Indian courts have expanded and refined the scope of mandamus to uphold fairness, reasonableness, and justice in administrative action.
RELATED Blog
0 comments