Professional Documents
Culture Documents
It has also been held by this Court that demand for justice by somebody else cannot
be relied upon by the petitioners
(Tarapada v. State of West Bengal. AIR 1955 Cal 506, per Chakravartti, C. J.
and Lahiri, J]
If the petitioner is successful, the proper order would be to issue a writ in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to it. In that view of the
matter, the absence of any demand for justice seems to be fatal.
[Subodh Chandra Ghosh—vs—Major N.A.O. Callaghan and Others. AIR 1956
Cal 532=60 CWN 917]
It has been laid down by the appeal court that in a petition for mandamus the
petitioner must state his rights in the matter in question, his demand for justice and
the denial thereof. The demand for justice and the denial thereof is not merely a
technical point but a point of substance.
[Union of India v. Elbridgo Watson, (1951)20 ITR 400 (Cal)]
EXCEPTIONS:
But aforesaid rule has also been held to admit of certain exceptions, for example,
demand for justice is a matter of substance and not of mere form
(Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, [1952] 1 SCR 135]
Rabindra Nath Chakravarty v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 Cal 394 Das
and Debabrata Mookerjee JJ.)
The principle is well established that where a demand for justice would be useless,
the absence of it is not deemed to be fatal. In my opinion, this preliminary objection
is not fatal to this application, because a demand of justice would, under the
circumstances of this case, have been entirely futile.
[Narendra Nath Chakraborty—vs—Corporation of Calcutta and Others, AIR
1960 Cal 102
=64 CWN 134]
An undivided Hindu family is ordinarily joint not only in estate but in food and worship
but it is not necessary that a joint family should own joint family property.
[State of Maharashtra—vs—Narayan Rao Shyam Rao Deshmukh and Others
by a Bench Strength 3 Judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1985 SC 716 =
(1985) 2 SCC 321]