ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR

DEPARTMENT OF LAW
ASSIGNMENT WORK

2020

SUBMITTED
MITTED ON THE TOPIC

Writ of Mandamus

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

PROF. BISWAJIT DAS NAME: SUNAYANA GUPTA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR ROLL NO: 17 SEMESTER: 4TH

DEPARTMENT OF LAW COURSE NO: 404

ASSAM UNIVERSITY SUBJECT: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (II)

SILCHAR COURSE:B.A LL.B(H)

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It was a great pleasure to undertake this assignment. To make the
final outcome of any assignment successful it requires a lot of
guidance and I am extremely thankful to my teacher Biswajit Das
Sir, Assistant Professor, Department Of Law , Assam University
who has provided me with this opportunity to gain knowledge
through this assignment.
I am also grateful to my family and classmates who constantly
motivated me to this assignment within the time period.
I am privileged to do this assignment and gain so much
knowledge through it. The assignment wouldn’t have completed
without the enormous help and guidance within the limited time
frame.
THANKING YOU
Sunayana Gupta
4th semester, Roll no:17
B.A LL.B (HONOURS)
 SYNOPSIS
S.NO PAGE.NO

1 WRIT 1
2 TYPES OF WRIT 2
WRIT OF MANDAMUS:
 INTRODUCTION
 MEANING
3 4
 DEFINATION
 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT
 NATION AND SCOPE
GROUNDS OF APPLICABLITY OF
MANDAMUS
4  WHEN IT WILL LIE 8
 WHEN IT WILL NOT LIE

APPLICABILTY OF MANDAMUS AGAINST

5 12
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
6 MANDMUS AND OTHER WRITS 18
 CITEORIFIED MANDAMUS
7 19
 CONTINUING MANDAMUS
8 JUDICIAL APPRECIATION 20
9 CONCLUSION 27
10 REFERENCE 28
Our Indian constitution has given us the basic fundamental rights containing in PART III of
the Indian Constitution in order to live a life with freedom and liberty but merely providing
fundamental right is not sufficient. It is necessary that it is protected.

To protect Fundamental Rights the Indian Constitution, under Articles 32 and 226,
provides the right to approach the Supreme Court or High Court, respectively, to any person
who’s Fundamental Right has been violated. At the same time, the two articles give the right
to the Supreme Court and the high court to issue writs in order to enforce Fundamental
Rights.

 Writ:-
A writ petition in general can be termed as a formal written order issued by a judicial
authority who possesses the authority to do so. Fundamentally, a writ is a formal written
order issued by anybody, executive or judicial, authorised to do so. In modern times, this
body is generally judicial. Therefore, a writ can be understood as a formal written order or
directive issued by a Court having authority to issue such an order. Orders, warrants,
directions, summons etc. are all essentially writs. A writ petition is an application filed before
the competent Court requesting it to issue a specific writ.

The parliament under Article 139 may confer the Supreme Court the power to issue
directions and orders or writs including writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari or any of them for purpose other than mentioned in Clause (2) of
Article 32 whereas _

Article 226 of Indian Constitution provides that notwithstanding anything to article

32, the High Court shall have the power to issue to any person or authority including the
appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories, directions, orders of writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari or any of them –

a. for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and

1
b. for any other purpose

It is also noted that the scope of writ jurisdiction of the High Court is much wider than the
writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs for the
purpose of enforcement of Fundamental Rights only whereas the High Court can issue writs
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as other specific purposes. For granting
similar jurisdiction to Supreme Court the need is a by a parliament law and there is no need
of amendment of constitution

 TYPES OF WRITS:-
Articles 32 and 226 specifically provide for five kinds of writs. These writs are issued in
different circumstances and have different implications. They are:

Habeas Corpus

‘Habeas Corpus’ literally means “to have a body of”. This writ is used to release a person
who has been unlawfully detained or imprisoned. By virtue of this writ, the Court directs the
person so detained to be brought before it to examine the legality of his detention. If the
Court concludes that the detention was unlawful, then it directs the person to be released
immediately.

Examples of unlawful detention are:

1. The detention was not done in accordance with the procedure laid down. For instance,
the person was not produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours.
2. The person was arrested when he did not violate any law.
3. An arrest was made under a law that is unconstitutional.

This writ can be filed by the detained person himself or his relatives or friends on his behalf.
It can be issued against both public authorities and individuals.

Mandamus

‘Mandamus’ means ‘we command’. It is issued by the Court to direct a public authority to
perform the legal duties which it has not or refused to perform.

2
It can be issued by the Court against a public official, public corporation, tribunal, inferior
court or the government. It cannot be issued against a private individual or body, the
President or Governors of States or against a working Chief Justices.

Further, it cannot be issued in the following circumstances:

1. The duty in question is discretionary and not mandatory.

2. For the performance of a non-statutory function.
3. Performance of the duty involves rights of purely private nature.
4. Where such direction involves violation of any law.

A writ petition seeking mandamus must be filed by the person who has an interest in the
performance of the duty by the public authority.

Prohibition

A writ of prohibition is issued by a Court to prohibit the lower courts, tribunals and other
quasi-judicial authorities from doing something beyond their authority. It is issued to direct
inactivity and thus differs from mandamus which directs activity.

Certiorari

‘Certiorari’ means to ‘certify’. Certiorari is a curative writ. When the Court is of the opinion
that a lower court or a tribunal has passed an order which is beyond its powers or committed
an error of law then, through the writ of certiorari, it may transfer the case to itself or quash
the order passed by the lower court or tribunal.

Quo Warranto

‘Quo Warranto’ means ‘by what warrant’. Through this writ, the Court calls upon a person
holding a public office to show under what authority he holds that office. If it is found that
the person is not entitled to hold that office, he may be ousted from it. Its objective is to
prevent a person from holding an office he is not entitled to therefore preventing usurpation
of any public office. It cannot be issued with respect to a private office.

3
 Writ Of Mandamus:-
The writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of order from Supreme Court or
High Court to any other inferior court, government or any other public authority to carry
out a ‘public duty ‘entrusted upon them by the state or by common law or to refrain from
doing a specific act which has declared unconstitutional or unlawful. For the grant of the
writ of mandamus there must be some public duty. The main objective is to ensure a nd
keep the public authorities with the purview of their jurisdiction while performing public
duties.

 MEANING:
The term Mandamus in Latin means “we command’’. Thus it is a writ issued in the form
of command or order.

 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT:

Writ of Mandamus (“We Command‟) is of English origin. In past, the King of England as the
authoritarian autocrat of the administrative set-up, he used to issue mandamus to his subjects,
commanding them to fulfil the public duty conferred to them. To trace the origin of issuance
of mandamus, as the prerogative of the royal court of England is an uphill task, much because
it was never considered as an absolute judicial act, but rather an act of quasi-judicial nature.
Mandamus was used by the King of England for supervising (and superintending) the police
(and other public authorities of the same genre) for preserving social peace and public order
at all State levels. Since its origin, mandamus has been issued to compel the performance of a
wide range of public/quasi-public duties, performance of which had been unlawfully refused,
for example in cases pertaining to, restoration of office; holding of elections; and prevention
of dissolution of local municipal bodies and authorities.

Thus, writ in the nature of mandamus is defined as the royal command issued in the name
of the Crown, from the Court of the King’s Bench, to the subordinate court, an inferior
tribunal, a corporation, board or any other person requiring it (or him) to perform a public
duty. Such a duty, may be imposed by the Constitution (the Suprema Lex), a statute or
generally by the common law.

So far as India is concerned, the writ of mandamus follows the English pattern. In the pre-
independent India, the three Supreme Courts by the respective charters derived the power to issue
a writ of mandamus within the Presidency towns. Mandamus came in India by the Letters Patent
creating the Supreme Court in Calcutta in 1773. The Supreme Courts were empowered to issue the

4
 writ. In 1877, the Specific Relief Act added an order in the nature of mandamus in the place of the
writ of mandamus. It was done for the purpose of “requiring any specific act done or forborne
within the local limits of its ordinary civil jurisdiction by any person holding a public office.

In a case concerning the writ of mandamus, in the pre-independent India was that of
Tan Bug Taim v. Collector of Bombay 1,an order requisitioning immovable property under
the Defence of India Rules was held ultravires and mandamus was issued. It was argued by
the Government that, there was no „law‟ under which the Collector could be asked to forbear
from requisitioning and Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 could not apply. The
Court held, that „law‟ included the Royal Charter, statute and the common law, and that
Section 299(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935 related to acquisition. That was enough
to attract Section 45.

It was in fact amplified in another case (Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas

Bhanji; AIR 1952 SC 16), wherein it was held that the words „any law‟ were wide enough to
embrace all kinds of laws, statutory or otherwise. After the commencement of the
Constitution of India, the Supreme Court of India is empowered, by virtue of Article 32 of the
Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus for the enforcement of the fundamental rights,
while every High Court has power to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus under Article
226 of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights and also for „any other
purpose‟ throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

Under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, this provision has omitted. This omission has been done
because such a provision under the Specific Relief Act became redundant. As the
Constitution Of India also had similar and effective provision for enforcement of public
duties. Later constitution gave the powers to all high courts to issue writs. The Supreme
Court and High Court can also issue mandamus for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

 NATURE AND SCOPE:

A writ of mandamus is in the form of command directed to the inferior Court, tribunal, a
board, corporation or any administrative authority, or a person requiring the performance of

1
AIR 1946 Bom 216: (1945) 47 Bom LR 1010

5
 a specific duty fixed by law or associated with the office occupied by the person.

Mandamus in England is “neither a writ of course nor a writ of right, but that it will be
granted if the duty is in the nature of public duty and specially affects the right of an
individual provided there is no other appropriate remedy.

The writ is issued to compel an authority to do his duties or exercise his powers, in
accordance with the mandate of law. The authority may also be prevented from doing an
act, which he is not entitled to do. The authority, against which the writ is issued, may be
governmental or semi-governmental, or judicial bodies. Its function in Indian
Administrative Law is as general writ of justice, whenever justice is denied or delayed and
the aggrieved person has no other suitable the defects of justice. An order in the nature of
mandamus is not made against a private individual. The rule is now well established that a
writ of mandamus cannot be issued to a private individual, unless he acts under some public
authority. A writ can be issued to enforce a public duty whether it is imposed on private
individual or on a public body.

The Court laid down that public law remedy mandamus can be availed of against a person
when he is acting in a public capacity as a holder of public office and in the performance of
a public duty. It is not necessary that the person or authority against whom mandamus can
be claimed should be created by a statute. Mandamus can be issued against a natural person
if he is exercising a public or a statutory power of doing a public or a statutory duty.

The broad principles, in regards to the writ of mandamus, which can be culled out are as
follows: (a) The applicant for an order of mandamus must show that there resides in him a
legal right, demanding the performance of a legal duty, by the party against whom mandamus
is sought; (b) Writ of mandamus can be issued to any person, authority, board, corporation or
tribunal, requiring it to do that which a statute demands of it. Legal duty or obligation,
fulfilment which mandamus demands, must be the one culling out of the Constitution, a
statute or the common law; (c) The application for mandamus should be made in good faith;
not with any oblique motive or ulterior purpose; (d) Mandamus will be refused, if there is an
alternate remedy available; (e) Prior to acceding to the demand for issuance of mandamus,
the court must be satisfied that, a genuine demand for performance of the public duty was
made by the petitioner and the same was refused (or was not complied with) by the

6
respondent. There are, no doubt, exceptions to the demand-refusal rule, both in England as
well as in India.

In the case of, State of West Bengal v. Nuruddin2, the Supreme Court of India held-
Mandamus compels the performance of a duty resting on the person to whom it is issued. It is
in substance, a personal action which rests on the assumed fact that the respondent has
neglected (or has refused) to perform his duty, the performance of which is the right of the
applicant. A court of law can step in, either in case of failure to exercise power by the
authority or in case of illegal, unlawful or improper exercise of power. The court, however,
cannot take a decision which in law is required to be taken by the statutory authority.

In another case, Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan3, the
Supreme Court of India held that, the High Courts of India exercising their jurisdiction under
Article 226 have the power to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, to pass orders (and to
give necessary directions) where the government (or a public authority) has failed to exercise
or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy
decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant
considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as
to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such
discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High
Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus to
give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion
conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent
injustice resulting to the parties concerned, the court may itself pass an order which the
government (or the public authority) should have passed (or given) had it properly and
lawfully exercised its discretion.

Though, the main function of mandamus is to compel action. Writ of mandamus neither
creates nor confers power to act; for it only commands the exercise of power already existing,
when it is the duty of the person or authority proceeded against- to act. Although mandamus
may require performance of public duty, its command is never to act in a particular manner.

2
(1998) 8 SCC 143
3
(1986) 2 SCC 679: AIR 1987 SC 537

7
 It is not possible to lay down the standard- as to in what situations a writ of mandamus will
be issued and in what situations it should not be issued. It depends on the nature of the right
sought to be protected; duty sought to be enforced; scheme of the statute; injury likely to be
caused; consequences likely to ensue; consequent effect of the exercise (or non-exercise) of
the power and other similar considerations.

 GROUNDS OF APPLICAPABLITY OF MANDAMUS:

The writ of mandamus issued o the following grounds:

1. That the petitioner has a legal right
2. there’s infringement of the legal right of the petitioner;
3. the infringement is due to non-performance of the duty by the public authority
4. That the petitioner has demanded the performance of the legal duty by the public
authority and the authority has refused to act;
5. That there has been no effective alternative legal remedy.
The applicant must show that the duty, which is sought to be enforced, is owed to him and
the applicant must be able to establish an interest the invasion of which has been given rise
to the action.
The writ of mandamus is available against all kinds of administrative action, if it is affected
with illegality. When the action is mandatory the authority has a legal duty to perform it.
Where the action is discretionary, the discretion has to be exercised on certain principles; the
authority exercising the discretion has mandatory duty to decide in each case whether it is
proper to exercise its discretion. In the exercise of its mandatory powers as well as
discretionary powers it should be guided by honest and legitimate considerations and the
exercise its discretion should be for the fulfilment of those purposes, which are
contemplated by the law. If the public authority ignores these basic facts in the exercise of
mandatory or discretionary, then the writ of mandamus may be issued. Where the duty is
not mandatory but it is only discretionary, the writ of mandamus will not be issued.
The principles are illustrated in the case of Vijaya Mehta v. State4 .There a petition
was moved in the high Court for directing the state Government to appoint a
Commission to inquire into change in climate cycle, flood in the State etc. Refusing
to issue the writ, the Court pointed out that under Section 3 of the Commission of
Inquiry Act, the Government is obligated to appoint a commission if the Legislature
passes a resolution to that effect.

4. AIR 1980 Raj.207

8
 In the case of Union of India v. S.B. Vohra5, the Supreme Court of India held as
follows: “A writ of mandamus may be issued in favour of a person who establishes a
legal right in himself. It may be issued against a person who has a legal duty to
perform but has failed or has neglected to do so. Such a legal duty emanates by
operation of law. The writ of mandamus is most extensive in regards to its remedial
nature. The object of mandamus is to prevent disorder emanating from failure of
justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no
specific remedy”.

WHEN IT WILL LIE: -

I. The writ of mandamus can be issued only there is a failure to perform a
mandatory duty
II. The writ of mandamus can only be granted when there is in the applicant a right
to compel the performance of some duty cast upon the authority. The duty
sought to be enforced must be public duty cast by law. A private right cannot be
enforced by the writ of mandamus.
III. The writ of mandamus can be issued to public authority to restrain it from
acting under a law which has been declared unconstitutional.
IV. The writ of mandamus can be issued to public authority to restrain it from
acting under a law which has been declared unconstitutional.

In Bhopal sugar Industries Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer Bhopal6, it was held by the supreme
Court that, where the Income Tax Officer had virtually refused to carry out the clear and
unambiguous directions which a superior tribunal like the Income tax appellate Tribunal had
given to him by its final order in exercise of its appellate power in respect of an order of
assessment made by him, such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is furthermore
destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based on as it is the
hierarchy of Courts. In such a case a writ of mandamus should issue ex-debits justifiable to
compel the Income-tax Officer to carry out the directions given to him by the Income-tax
Appellate Tribunal. The High Court will be clearly in error if it refused to issue a writ on the

5. (2004) 2 SCC 150, 160: AIR 2004 SC 1402

6. AIR 1961 SC 182

9
ground that no manifest injustice has resulted from the order of the Income-tax Officer in
view of the error committed by the tribunal itself in its order. Such a view is destructive of
one of the basic principles of the administration of justice.

Thus we find that the Court will not tolerate the omission of mandatory duties by the police
authority and it would compel the authority by the writ of mandamus to do what it must.
A writ of mandamus will not be issued unless an accusation of non- compliance with a legal
duty or a public duty is levelled. It must be shown by concrete evidence that there was a
distinct and specific demand for performance of any legal or public duty cast upon the said
party declined to comply with the demand.

The writ of mandamus can be granted only in cases where there is statutory duty imposed
upon the concerned, there is failure on the part of that officer to discharge statutory
obligation.

The High Courts have the power to issue writ of mandamus where the government or a
public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred
upon it by a statue or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such
discretion of the policy such discretion.

In case of Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan7, the Supreme
Court of India held that, the High Courts of India exercising their jurisdiction under Article
226 have the power to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, to pass orders (and to give
necessary directions) where the government (or a public authority) has failed to exercise or
has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy
decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant
considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as
to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such
discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High
Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus to
give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion
conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent
injustice resulting to the parties concerned, the court may itself pass an order which the

7
(1986) 2 SCC 679: AIR 1987 SC 537

10
government (or the public authority) should have passed (or given) had it properly and
lawfully exercised its discretion.

When an original legislation by the Union or State exceeds its legislative orbit and injuries
private interests, the owner of such interests can have a mandamus directing the States not to
enforce the impugned law “against the petitioners in any manner whatsoever.” The duty of
this writ becomes more onerous as it attempts to face different phases and types of ultra vires
administrative action, whether with regard to internment or election, taxation or license fees,
evacuee property or dismissal of public officers.

WHEN THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS WILL NOT BE ISSUED:-

The writ of mandamus will not be granted in the following circumstances:

I. When the duty is merely discretion in nature the writ of mandamus will not lie.
II. The writ of mandamus will not be granted against a private individual or private
organisation because they are not entrusted with any public duty.
III. A writ o mandamus cannot be granted to enforce an obligation arising out of contract.

In MRS. Santosh Singh V. Union of India8, the Supreme Court held- the writ of mandamus
cannot be issued for introduction of moral science as a compulsory subject in school
curriculum. There is no dispute about the value based education. The jurisdiction Supreme
Court is not a panacea for all ills but a remedy for the violation of Fundamental Rights.

In Swaraj Abhiyan (II, III And IV) V Union of India,9 which was a case filed under Article
32 of the Constitution regarding non- implementation of National Food Security ACT, 2003.
The Supreme Court held- the mandamus cannot be issued by the Supreme Court the State
Governments for implementation of the Act beyond what is required by the terms and
provisions of the statue. It is not possible for the court to issue a positive direction to the State
Governments to make available to the needy persons any item over above mandated by the
Act, such lentil and edible oil or any other item for that matter to all households in the
drought affected areas.

8
AIR 2016 SC 3456
9
AIR 2016 SC 2953

11
APPLICABITY OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION:-

Enforcement of discretionary powers by administrative authorities has been accepted as

important phenomena of modern administrative and constitutional machinery. Law making
authorities can enact the laws on any subject to serve the public interest and while enacting
such laws; it has become inevitable to provide for discretionary powers that are subject to
judicial review.

Condition precedent attached with such discretionary power is only that such discretionary
power has to be exercised in good faith. The purpose behind this discretion is prescribed
under this act along with certain limitations. The Courts have to exercise their writ
jurisdiction to test the Statute on the ground of reasonableness. Mostly, the courts review on
two grounds;

1. Firstly whether the statute in question is substantively valid piece of legislation or

not and,
2. Secondly whether the statute provides procedural safeguards to all.

If these grounds are not found in any statue then the law is declared ultra vires and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the court also controls the discretionary power of executive bodies that are
being exercised by them after the statute is enacted or come into force..It is the duty of
executive authorities to exercise their power within limitations prescribed under the act to
achieve its objective. This discretionary powers of executive bodies play substantial role in
administrative decision making and for immediate settlement of principles of administrative
law trap the exercise of powers.

In case where such discretionary powers are not exercised in accordance with law, or there is
any kind of abuse and misuse of such powers by the executives or take any inappropriate
benefits for which they are not entitled to take or simply misdirect administrative agencies in
applying the proper provision of law, then such power exercised in discretion will become
void. When it is found by the court that executive authorities have acted in accordance with

12
law and maintain reasonable standards while giving their decision then such decisions are not
subject to Judicial Review.

The Executive have to reach their decisions by taking into account relevant considerations.
They can neither refuse to consider relevant matter nor can they take into consideration
accounts which are fully irrelevant or extraneous with the facts of the case and law.

Authorities must not misdirect themselves on the points of law. Only those decisions will be
lawful and relevant which were decided in accordance with law. The courts have the power to
keep an eye on the actions of executive bodies and to keep a check that these bodies acts
lawfully.

These bodies cannot avoid court’s scrutiny, in situations where they failed to provide the
reason for their actions and in case the reason given by them is not satisfactory to the court
then court is provided with the authority to give direction for reconsideration of the matter in
the light of relevant matters and already decided case.

Though the adequacy or satisfactory character of these reasons may not be open to judicial
scrutiny and even if the Executive considers it inexpedient to exercise their powers they
should state their reasons and there must be material to show that they have considered all the
relevant facts.”

The writ of mandamus is available against all kinds of administrative action, if it is affected
with illegality. When the action is mandatory the authority has a legal duty to perform it.
Where the action is discretionary, the discretion has to be exercised on certain principles; the
authority exercising the discretion has mandatory duty to decide in each case whether it is
proper to exercise its discretion. In the exercise of its mandatory powers as well as
discretionary powers it should be guided by honest and legitimate considerations and the
exercise its discretion should be for the fulfilment of those purposes, which are contemplated
by the law. If the public authority ignores these basic facts in the exercise of mandatory or
discretionary, then the writ of mandamus may be issued. Where the duty is not mandatory but
it is only discretionary, the writ of mandamus will not be issued.

13
Court can’t even question the discretion of the administrative authorities whereas, when such
discretion is illegal or given in case of excess jurisdiction or with malafide intent or the
authority making such decisions are influenced by external contents or materials, then the
court may do so.

Case- Rameshwar Prasad Kedarnath v District Magistrate10

In this case emphasis has been laid down on Article 19(1)(g) on the right to practice any
profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, subject, of course, as laid down
in Article 19(6), to any reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public as may be
placed on it. Here the district court has refused the grant of licence to the applicant on the
ground other than licensing authority can legitimately take into consideration.

Therefore, a misuse of the power by licensing authority by not renewing the licence on
illegal grounds and misusing their discretionary power can frustrate the very purpose of the
welfare State established by the Constitution of this Country.

Though on the discretion of administrative authorities’ court can’t raise any question but
where it is seen that such discretion is illegal then a writ of mandamus can be issued against
the inferior authority.

Hence, it was held by the Allahabad High Court that order of the District Magistrate, Kanpur
of refusing to renew the petitioner’s licence will be quashed, and a writ in the nature of
mandamus will be issued to the District Magistrate, Kanpur, directing him to consider the
application of the petitioner for the renewal of his licence on its merits

Case- State of Bombay v Laxmidas Ranchhoddas11

Bombay High Court has given its observation on the main and principal object of a writ of
mandamus and held that writ of mandamus is issued to compel Government or its officers to

10
AIR 1954 ALL 144
11
AIR 1952 Bom468, (1952)54 BOMLR 681

14
carry out their statutory obligation and before issuing this writ court has to check that,
Government or its officers do not overstep the limits and the bounds that the statute has
prescribed for the exercise of their power.

Wherever there are certain conditions attached by the legislature with the power, without
which such powers can’t be exercised and the officer possessed with the power even without
satisfying the condition there also court can intervene and prevent officer from acting
contrary to law.

Ultra vires act of Administrative Authorities

Mainly the writ of mandamus is issued whenever an administrative authorities acted ultra
vires and also for preventing the government or any law making body from enforcing any
unconstitutional act or notification. That is to say that whenever any administrative authority
performs any work beyond their power or any government /legislative authority enforcing
any law or notification which is unconstitutional then the writ of mandamus may be issued to
stop the authorities from doing so.

Case- State of Bombay v Bombay Education Society12

Facts- Respondent no.1 is an education society of Bombay running as a recognised Anglo-

Indian School named Barnes High School at Deolali. This education society receives aid
from State of Bombay. The state of Bombay issued an order dated 6th Jan 1954. Mainly the
operative part of the order states that no primary or secondary school shall from the date of
issue of this order take admission to the class where English is used as a language of
delivering instruction to any pupil other than pupil belonging to a section of citizens whose
language is English only like Anglo-Indians and citizens of non-Asiatic descent.

So, one citizen of Indian of Christian community let say A claiming that English is the
mother tongue of his daughter and on the other side there was another Indian citizen lets say
Z claiming that Guajarati is the mother tongue of his son, both of them were denied
admission on the grounds of aforesaid order of their respective wards.

12
AIR 1954 AIR 561,1955 SCR 568

15
Therefore, two faculty from the society filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the High
Court of Bombay for the issue of writ of mandamus praying that state of Bombay and its
officers must be restrained from enforcing the aforesaid order and alloying the society to take
admission of non anglo Indian citizens or citizens from asiatic descent and educate them all
through the medium of english and the similar application was made by A&Z for allowing
the admission of their wards. Both the applications were heard together and accepted by the
High Court and ordered in favour of the petitioner as prayed.

State of Bombay moved to Supreme Court on appeal.

There were two important questions raised on the aforesaid order-

1. Rights of the students of non anglo Indian or asiatic descent community to get
admission in Respondent society.
2. Right of the education society to admit non-Anglo- Indian students and students of
Asiatic descent.

Held- Supreme Court held that –

1. Impugned order issued by the state government of Bombay is void, as it violates

the Fundamental right of non anglo-Indian students and students of non-Asiatic
descent guaranteed to all the citizens under Article 29(2) of the Indian
Constitution,1950. Article states the right of every citizen to get admission in
educational institutions aided or maintained by the state.
2. As the provisions of the said article is applicable to all the citizens whether they
belong to a majority or minority community and protection given under said article
extent against state or anybody who violate the right conferred.
3. Clause (2) of Article 337 of Indian Constitution impose obligations on the Anglo-
Indian schools to make 40% reservation in annual admission for non Anglo-Indian
students. Hence, there is an obligation imposed on the Barnes High School to take
admission of at least 40% non Anglo- Indian students and with the impugned order
this can’t be possible and also for receiving grants from the government 40%
admission of non Anglo- Indian is condition precedent. Therefore, the impugned
order is unconstitutional as violative of Article 337 and Article 29. The said

16
 impugned order is preventing the Anglo-Indian schools from performing their
constitutional duties and exposes them to the risk of for-feiting their constitutional
right to the special grant.

From this decision of the High Court and Supreme Court it was made clear that writ of
mandamus was issued against State of Bombay and its authority for preventing them from
issuing an unconstitutional order which is violative of Article 29 and Article 337 of Indian
Constitution which imposes right to education to all the students in government aided or
maintained institution and imposes a legal obligation on the Anglo-Indian educational
institution to take admission of non Anglo-Indian students as requirement for seeking grant
respectively.

Case- State of Bihar v D.N. Ganguly13

Facts– in 1954 government of Bihar notify an industrial dispute between the management of
Bata shoes co. Patna and their 31 workmen under the powers conferred in said Government
by section 7 read with section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Subject-matter of dispute
was regarding the dismissal of the workmen in question was justified or not and if such
dismissal was not justified then whether they will be entitled to some reinstatement or any
other relief and industrial tribunal was constituted with a single member.

Then in January 1955, also another similar case was referred by the government of Same
Bata shoes co. Ltd. and its 29 other workers to the same tribunal which was previously
constituted.

While the proceedings of these two references were pending before the tribunal, the
government of Bihar issued third notification on september,1955. By this third notification
government proposed to supplant the two earlier notifications, by which it combined the two
disputes together, ad Bata mazdoor union to the dispute and refer it for adjudication before
the tribunal. Question involved in the referred dispute was regarding justification of dismissal
of 60 workmen, and for what relief they are entitled to? No receipts of third notification
tribunal cancelled the hearing of prior two references and directed that files for said
references should be closed.

13
1958 AIR 1018,1959 SCR 1191

17
After that Bata co. and its workmen filed two separate application before the High Court
under Article 226 and 227 for quashing the third notification claiming it be illegal and “ultra
vires”. Patna High Court on 4 April 1956 held that government has no power to supplant the
earlier notifications in lieu of which quashed the third notification and issued a writ of
certiorari also issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the industrial tribunal to
proceed in the first two references made to it and provide a conclusion in according to law.

Two appeals were filled by State of Bihar before the Supreme Court urging that the order of
the High Court was erroneous.

Supreme Court confirmed the findings of the High Court of Patna, that cancellation of first
two notification by the government is illegal and ultra vires. It was held that in making a
reference under section 10(1) by appropriate government is an administrative act and the
preliminary step to their function under this section is to form an opinion in regard to the
actual existence of industrial dispute. Therefore court find more appropriate to issue a writ of
mandamus against the ultra vires act of the appellant in respect of third impugned
notification. And appeals were dismissed by the court.

The writ is issued to compel an authority to do his duties or exercise his powers, in
accordance with the mandate of law. The authority may also be prevented from doing an act,
which he is not entitled to do. The authority, against which the writ is issued, may be
governmental or semi-governmental, or judicial bodies. Its function in Indian Administrative
Law is as general writ of justice, whenever justice is denied or delayed and the aggrieved
person has no other suitable the defects of justice.

Mandamus and the Other Writs: Mandamus is used where the authority refuses to exercise
jurisdiction; prohibition and certiorari are issued to prevent subordinate courts (and inferior
tribunals) from usurping jurisdiction or from acting in excess to their jurisdiction. Hence,
while mandamus is available against public authority; prohibition and certiorari are available
against subordinate courts and inferior tribunals.

18
While mandamus is a command to a person or a body under a legal duty to do something;
quo-warranto is a proceeding by which a person is asked to state by what authority he
supports his claim to a particular office, liberty or franchise. In a mandamus proceeding, the
petitioner must show that he is a person aggrieved but this requirement is not necessary in a
quo-warranto proceeding. Mandamus and quo-warranto are concurrent remedies.

Certiorari and prohibition deal with wrongful action, while mandamus deals with wrongful in
action. Mandamus acts where the authority concerned has declined jurisdiction; certiorari or
prohibition act where courts (and tribunals) usurp jurisdiction not vested in them or exceed
their jurisdiction.

Existence of an alternate remedy is a matter to be taken into consideration while issuing a

writ of mandamus; however, prayer for prohibition or quo-warranto cannot be dismissed only
on the ground of alternate remedy being available to the applicant. Demand for justice and its
consequent refusal by the authority concerned is a condition precedent in case of mandamus;
however, it is not the requirement in regards to the writ of prohibition or certiorari.

Certiorarified Mandamus: By issuing a writ of certiorari, an issue adjudged by a

subordinate court (or an inferior tribunal), if it is without jurisdiction or in excess thereof can
be quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued for directing a public officer, court, tribunal,
corporation or board to act in accordance with law; duly complying with their respective
public duty, which in-turn is imposed by the Constitution, a statute or the common law.
Mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for the writ of certiorari. Exercise of certiorari does
not bar mandamus, when facts of a case are peculiar and issuance of one writ does not
absolves, the issue adequately. Thus, in some cases, the relative nature in regards to certiorari
and mandamus may be combined. By issuance of certiorari a decision may be quashed and by
subsequent issuance of mandamus an authority may be directed to decide the matter in
accordance with law. This culls out a writ of a completely different nature, that is,
„Certiorarified Mandamus.

Supreme Court of India observed, in the case of, Chingleput Bottlers v. Majestic Bottling
Co.14i, as follows: “It is true that sometimes it is prudent to couple a writ of certiorari with a
writ of mandamus, to control the exercise of discretionary power. In a number of cases, the
14
1984 AIR 1030,1984 SCR(3) 190

19
 Supreme Court has in fact issued both the writs, certiorari for quashing the decision
impugned and mandamus for direction to the authority or tribunal to decide the case afresh, in
accordance with law.”

Continuing Mandamus: Speaking objectively, the primary use of the writ of mandamus is
to command the public authorities to render their legal duties (bestowed upon them by the
Constitution, a statute or the common law), effectively and efficiently. There can be instances
where by the court may be of the view that mere issuance of a prerogative (writ of
mandamus) upon a public authority would not suffice and continued monitoring by the court
is to be required, to see that a public authority renders its legal duty effectively. In such a
case, rather than finally disposing of the matter, the court may be willing to issue interim

directions for continued surveillance over the public authorities, with court calling upon for
compliance report from time to time. This judicial remedy is a result of continued judicial
activism which sees law as an art of social-engineering. In several public-interest-litigation
cases, the Apex Court in India has ordered for a continuing mandamus.

 JUDICIAL APPRECIATION:

LANDMARK CASES:-

Lady Dinbai Petit vs M.S. Noronha on 14 October, 1945

Neither the High Court nor any Judge thereof shall hereafter issue any writ of mandamus.

It should be noticed that while Section 50 forms part of Chapter VIII of the Specific Relief
Act, in that section there is no reference to Section 45 at all. The learned trial Judge
construed Section 50 as taking away the right of the Court to issue
the writ of mandamus and read Section 45 as enlarging the meaning of the word
" mandamus " so as to include the writ of prohibition also. With respect, in my opinion, that
is not the correct way to approach the question of jurisdiction of the Court. The jurisdiction of
the Court, as 1 have pointed out, is found in Clause 5 of the Charter. The next question to be
considered by the Court is whether that jurisdiction has been curtailed or taken away, and if
so, how and to what extent. The writ of prohibition and the writ of mandamus are two
independent writs, to be issued under different circumstances. They are distinct, separate

20
privileges. The writ of prohibition is limited to prevention of exercise of jurisdiction by a
body performing judicial or quasi judicial functions. It has nothing to do with executive acts
which may also be controlled by the writ of mandamus. It must be recognised that the
Legislature is aware of the distinction between the writ of mandamus and the writ of
prohibition, and there was nothing to prevent them from taking away the jurisdiction in
respect of the writ of prohibition, if they were so minded, unless the conditions provided
in Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act were fulfilled. The jurisdiction of the superior Courts
cannot be impliedly taken away by some words found in a section of an Act of the
Legislature. It has to be taken away, if at all, by express words. This is particularly so when
the Legislature had deliberately provided in Section 50 that the writ of mandamus (only)
could not be issued thereafter. This rule of construction is recognised by the highest judicial
authority. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. IX, Article 1455, p. 861, in dealing with
the writ of certiorari it is stated as follows:

26. It has been suggested that Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act has taken away the
jurisdiction of the Court to issue the writ of prohibition. The argument is that Section 45 is a
comprehensive section which deals both with the writ of mandamus and the writ of
prohibition. It is pointed out that in England the writ of mandamus can only be issued for
the purpose of directing a public servant to do a specific act and not asking; him to forbear
from doing any particular act, and from that it is sought to be inferred that when the
Legislature enacted Section 45 it comprehensively dealt with both the writs,
the writ of mandamus and the writ of prohibition. Now, in the first place, it must be noticed
that Section 45 does not refer to either of the two writs and it is only when we turn to Section
50 that the Legislature refers only to the writ of mandamus and it provides by that section
that neither the High Court nor any Judge thereof shall hereafter issue
any writ of mandamus. Now I take it that the Legislature knew the distinction between
the writ of mandamus and the writ of prohibition, and when the Legislature expressly took
away the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue the writ of mandamus and did not refer to
the writ of prohibition at all it is clear to my mind that it was not the object of the Legislature
to deprive the High Court of that jurisdiction. When the Legislature was in express terms
dealing with a particular writ-and it must have been patent to the draftsman of the Act that
another writ could also be issued by the High Court and the High Court had jurisdiction to
issue that writ and it was not thought proper to refer in Section 50 to the other writ at all, the
only natural conclusion that one can arrive at is that the Legislature did not intend to interfere

21
with the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue the writ of prohibition. That the jurisdiction
of the High Court cannot be taken away by implication has been made clear by the Privy
Council in Besant's case. In that case the Magistrate had required security from Mrs. Besant
in connection with the newspaper published by her in India called " New India " and a writ of
certiorari was applied for against the Magistrate. It was sought to be argued that the writ of
certiorari could, not be issued and the High Court had no longer jurisdiction to issue
the writ in view of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 435 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. It was suggested that these two sections gave powers of revision to the High
Court in civil and criminal matters and, therefore, the need for a writ of certiorari had
disappeared and the Privy Council rejected that argument; and their Lordships observed as
follows (p. 159):-

27. The learned Judge felt bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal of our Court
in Mahomedalli v. Jafferbhoy (1925) 28 Bom. L.R. 264. In that case Sir Norman Macleod,
Chief Justice, observed (p. 269):

Proceedings under this section '[namely, Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act] are in
substitution for proceedings by writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition according to
English practice.

In the case of Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual & Othr15s ,the Supreme Court of
India observed that, an order of mandamus is, in form, a command directed to a person,
corporation or inferior tribunal requiring him (or them) to do a particular thing therein
specified, which appertains to his (or their) office and is in the nature of a public duty. It is,
however, not necessary that the person or body on whom such public duty is imposed need to
be a public official or statutory authority.

Writ of mandamus is available against any public authority including administrative and local
bodies, and it would lie against any person who under a duty imposed by a statute or by the
common law is obliged (and is duty-bound) to do a particular act. In order to obtain a writ or
an order (or direction) in the nature of mandamus, the applicant has to satisfy (the court of
law) that he has a legal right towards the performance of a legal duty by the party (or person)

15
(1969 ) 1 SCC 585: AIR 1969 SC 1309 – 1310: (1969) 3SCR 773

22
against whom mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the
petition

In case of Mani subrat Jain v State of Haryana16

In the given case Justice Ray A.N .had given a definition of an aggrieved person” a person is
said to be an aggrieved only when his legal rights has been denied by someone who has a
legal duty to do something or denied from doing something. The denied legal right must be a
legally enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal
grievance can ask for a mandamus.

In the case of Umakant Saran v State of Biha17r, DR. saran has challenged the order of the
High Court by a special leave of appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

From the facts of the case it was observed by the court that Dr. saran was not eligible for
appointment at the time the decision was taken by the High Court i.e. on March 31, 1965.
Whereas, respondents 5 and 6 were so eligible and therefore, Dr. Saran, had no right to ask
for a writ of mandamus. It was pointed out by the court that the purpose of mandamus is to
force the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty
and the aggrieved person had a legal right under the Statute to enforce its performance.
Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the court and writ of mandamus was not issued.

R. Thangavelu vs The Government Of India 18, The writ petitioner herein and others, who
claim to be the freedom fighters, were refused the grant of pension under the Swadantrata
Sainik Samman Pension Scheme by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India. Hence,
they approached this Court for issue of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to quash the order
of the Government of India and for mandamus to pay the pension from a particular date.
Some writ petitions were filed for the relief of mandamus directing the Government to
consider their names and consequently to pay the pension from a particular date.

With reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in R. Narayanan v. Union of
India19 . The appellant before the Supreme Court, who is a freedom fighter was refused the

16
1977 AIR 276, SCR(2)361
17
AIR 1973SC 964
18
( 1994) 1 MLJ 628
19
1990 AIR 746 , 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 720

23
grant of pension under the Swadantrata Sainik Samman Scheme by the Ministry of Home
Affairs and hence, he approached the Madras High Court for the issue of a writ of
Certiorarified mandamus. That writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge.
The writ appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by a Division Bench of our
High Court. Hence, he presented an appeal before the Supreme Court. Initially, the appellant
sought the grant of pension on the ground that as a freedom fighter, he was kept in police
custody for 15 days and after conviction, he underwent imprisonment for three and a half
months and under the scheme, a freedom fighter must have undergone a minimum period of
imprisonment for six months for his participation in the freedom struggle in order to get
pension under that head. So, the appellant was refused pension. Thereupon, he applied for
grant of pension on another ground viz. that he had suffered permanent loss of vision in his
left eye due to brutal lathi charge by the police against freedom fighters. The appellant's
claim of permanent loss of vision in the left eye was duly certified by Government doctors.
The District Collector, after making a detailed enquiry, certified the claim of the appellant as
a bona fide one and recommended his case for grant of pension. Accepting the report of the
Collector, the Deputy Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu addressed the 2nd respondent.
Inspite of the medical certificates issued by the Government doctors and the
recommendations of the District Collector and the State Government for grant of pension
under the Swadantrata Sainik Samman Scheme, the Ministry of Home Affairs declined to
grant pension to the appellant on the ground that it is not possible to grant pension in terms of
permanent incapacitation. It was in such circumstances, the appellant moved the Madras High
Court for the relief mentioned above but failed to meet with success. Counsel for the
appellant before the Supreme Court urged that the respondents are not justified in construing
Clause 3(e) of para.4 of the Pension Scheme to mean that the incapacity besides being
permanent, should also be of a total nature and as such, the denial of pension to the appellant
under Clause (e) is unjust. Under the scheme, a freedom fighter is eligible to receive pension
if he satisfies one of the following clauses, viz:

33. Insofar as the medical allowance was concerned, the learned Judge has observed that
there was no dispute whatsoever to the entitlement of the pensioners and the category of
pensioners to the said allowance. Thus, this Court has allowed
the writ petition for mandamus by declaring and directing the respondents to allow the
benefit of free travel concession in the buses of the State Transport undertakings to all the
recipients of the pension, Central or State or both. It is further directed that the disbursement
of the amount due to the categories of pensioners visualised in para 3(ii) and (iii) of G.O.Ms.

24
No. 877, Public (Political Pension II), dated 9.8.1991 in terms of the said order, be made.
This Court also directed the issuance of appropriate directions to the various disbursing
authorities to effectively disburse the medical allowance as and when claimed within a time-
bound limit.

l axmi Education Society vs The State Of Maharashtra 20

The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any such other
appropriate writ, order or directions, directing the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to furnish the
required details according to form at EXHIBIT "L" to the Dy.Director of Education regarding
the availability of courses and divisions of the Junior Colleges so as to enable the students to
seek admission in the college and to enable Deputy Director of Education to take the
necessary steps in processing the admissions of the students for the academic year 2009-
2010.

Both the petitions and the Notice of Motion were placed together before the Regular Court on
10th June, 2009.

It is in this backdrop, said Mr. Mohan Pillai has prayed for following reliefs:

a) A Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order and/or direction to the
Respondent No.1, 2 & 3 to participate in the 11th & 12th Std. admission process including
online admission to both the Education Institution run by the First Respondent Trust and
enroll the student for the said 11th & 12th Standard.
b) A Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order and/or direction to the
Respondent No.4 & 5 to ensure that 11th & 12th Standard's admission to both the
Educational Institutions i.e. M.V. & L.U. College of Arts, Science & Commerce and Shri
Chinai College of Commerce & Economics, is carried out by the Respondent No.1, 2 & 3.

Binny Ltd. And Anr Vs Sadasivisan And Others21 , In this case, the appellant was a Trust
running a science college affiliated to the Gujarat University under Gujarat University Act,
1949. The teachers working in that college were paid in the pay scales recommended by the
University Grants Commission and the college was an aided institution. There was some
dispute between the University Teachers Association and the University regarding the
fixation of their pay scales. Ultimately, the Chancellor passed an award and this award was
accepted by the State Govt. as well as the University and the University directed to pay the

20
AIR 2009 BOM 13709
21
AIR 2005 GUJ (4839)

25
teachers as per the award. The appellants refused to implement the award and the respondents
filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus and in the writ petition the appellants
contended that the college managed by the Trust was not an "authority" coming within the
purview of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore the writ petition was not maintainable.
This plea was rejected and this Court held that the writ of mandamus would lie against a
private individual and the words "any person or authority" used in Article 226 are not to be
confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State and they may cover
any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very
much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must
be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected
party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation
exists, mandamus cannot be denied.

26
 CONCLUSION

Administrative set-ups world over are suffering, more, from State in-action rather than State
mischief; much less to say, State in-action is State mischief in abstract sense. Writ of
mandamus is prerogative command of the least powered (but, most banked upon) wing of the
State, that is „judiciary‟, to cure the „sleep walking‟ tendency of the Government that more
often than less, pulls the democratic carriage, premised upon the „rule of law‟, into the
darkness of State anarchy, where rights, civil, political, legal and fundamental are just black-
letters, although written in gold in the State’s “Suprema Lex”, are effected usually by the
maladies of corruption, red-tape, excessive bureaucracy and nepotism of novel sorts.

Judicial activism of recent times has added to the writ nomenclature like never before, with
writs like “Certiorarified mandamus”, “anticipatory mandamus” and “continuing mandamus”
passing the social-floor-test, trying to make entry through the legal textual gateway. All this
speaks of two things, firstly, State in-action has added to public distrust in the positivist view
of law, and secondly, judiciary has taken recourse to activist tendency, pulling the curtains up
for the realist view of law to display the much needed action.

Hence the writ of mandamus is to protect the interest of the public from the powers given to
them to affect the rights and liabilities of the people. This writ makes sure that the power or
the duties are not misused by the executive or administration and are duly fulfilled. It
safeguards the public from the misuse of authority by the administrative bodies.

Although there are certain conditions also which were discussed in the project like all the
alternative remedies should be exhausted and it should be a statutory duty and not
discretionary in nature. Hence it forms one of basic tool in the hands of the common people
against the administrative bodies if they do not fulfil the duties which by statutes they are
bound to perform

27
 REFERENCCE

PRIMARY SOURCE:

BOOK:

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, DR. J.N PANDEY, CENTRAL LAW

AGENCY

JOURNAL:

 ARTICLE ON WRIT OF MANDAMUS PUBLISHED IN SSRN

ELECTRONIC JOURNAL BY SHIVAM GOEL

SECONDARY SOURCE:

INTERNET

 www.indiakanoon.com
 www. legalservice.com
 www.blog .ipleaders. in

28