Icfai Law School Icfai University, Dehradun

ICFAI LAW SCHOOL
ICFAI UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN
CONSTITUTION ASSIGNMENT
TOPIC- Writ of Mandamus
SUBMITTED BY: SUSHALI SHRUTI SUBMITTED TO: DR. VAGISH UPADHYAY

ENROLLMENT NO: 18FLICDDNO1144 FACULTY OF LAW
BATCH: 2018-2023
1
INTRODUCTION:
Fundamental Rights are contained in Part III of the Indian Constitution including the right to
equality, right to life and liberty etc. Merely providing for Fundamental Rights is not sufficient.
It is essential that these Fundamental Rights are protected and enforced as well.
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 whose
Fundamental Right has been violated. At the same time, the two articles give the right to the
highest courts of the country to issue writs in order to enforce Fundamental Rights.
Writs are a written order from Supreme Court or High Court that commands constitutional
remedies for Indian Citizens against the violation of their fundamental rights. Article 32 in the
Indian Constitution deals with constitutional remedies that an Indian citizen can seek from the
Supreme Court and High Court against the violation of his/her fundamental rights. The same
article gives the Supreme Court power to issue writs for the enforcement of rights whereas the
High Court has the same power under Article 226.
Types of Writs in India:

Supreme Court of India is the defender of the fundamental rights of the citizens. For that, it has
original and wide powers. It issues five kinds of writs for enforcing the fundamental rights of the
citizens. The five types of writs are:
1. Habeas Corpus
2. Mandamus
3. Prohibition
4. Certiorari
5. Quo-Warranto
2
Mandamus
Mandamuses a command issued by a court to an authority directing it to perform a public duty

imposed upon it by law . For example , when a body omits to decide a matter which it is bound
to decide , it can be commanded to decide the same.
Mandamus can be issued when the Government denies to itself a jurisdiction which it
undoubtedly has under the law , or where an authority vested with a power improperly refuses to
exercise it . The function of mandamus is to keep the public authorities within the limits of their
jurisdiction while exercising public functions .Mandamus can be issued to any kind of authority
in respect of any type of function – administrative , legislative , quasi-judicial , judicial
Mandamus is used to enforce the performance of public duties by public authorities .Mandamus
is not issued when Government is under no duty under the law . When an authority fails in its
legal duty to implement an order of a tribunal, mandamus can be issued directing the authority to
do so . Thus , when the appellate transport tribunal accepted the applications of the petitioner for
grant of permits, mandamus was issued to the concerned authority to issue the permits to the
petitioner in terms or the tribunal order .Mandamus is issued to enforce a mandatory duty which
may not necessarily be a statutory duty.
Facts about Mandamus in India:
Unlike Habeas Corpus, Mandamus cannot be issued against a private individual.
Mandamus cannot be issued in the following cases:
 To enforce departmental instruction that does not possess statutory force

 To order someone to work when the kind of work is discretionary and not mandatory
 To enforce a contractual obligation
 Mandamus can’t be issued against Indian President or State Governors
 Against the chief justice of a high court acting in a judicial capacity
CASES:
In Bombay municipality v. Advance Builders, the court directed the municipality to implement a
planning scheme which was prepared by it and approved by the Government under the relevant
statute but on which no action was taken for a considerable time.
Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. V. UOI & ORS:
3
A writ of mandamus is issued to do an act in accordance with the law. In order to have a cause of
action for mandamus, there has to be some order or statutory duty which may be considered to be
not in accordance with law or demur able or pendency of an action before a public authority
where he may not be disposing it of where an inaction or omission may be demur able. In the
cases of the present nature, none of the two is available. Where first information report or even
the material of investigation discloses an offence, the investigation has to go on and it will be too
much to think that because the investigation is going on, the mandamus should be issued to stop
it. A mandamus pre-supposes orders which are illegal, void or wholly without jurisdiction (1976)
4 SCC 677 : AIR 1977 SC 456 Geep Flashlight v. Union and unless some public authority has
jumped over the law, there can be no occasion to approach the court. The court may have to
correct the public servants in the case of breach of law or constitutional rights but by no sense
has to dictate and advise any public servant much less a subordinate court. A mandamus cannot
be issued where there is a dispute about facts; the informant making certain allegations and the
petitioner denying them here. There is forum for everything and it has to be done with proper
stages and by proper authority. There is no presumption in law that whatever has been said in the
first information report must be a white lie. If there has been a wrong, it is the authority and
business of the investigating agency to investigate the same and bring proper material before the
courts authorized to take cognizance thereof. The accused in those cases are to be dealt with
according to the provisions of law contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure and other
analogous special laws. The entire Administration is not to be run by the High Courts on the
basis of affidavits much less the affidavit of petitioner only. Above all, the mandamus, if it may
issue in the cases of the present nature will be assuming a shape or direction to a public servant
to do and discharge his function in a particular fashion according to the direction of the High
Court while he has not yet exercised his discretion. That will amount to correction of wrongs
which have yet to occur or may not occur at all. Certainly they cannot be for laying down
principles of procedure to be adopted in individual cases, that may be looked upon only as an
unhealthy encroachment upon the authority of lower courts.
State of Punjab V. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh

The business of State is a complicated one and has necessarily to be conducted through the
agency of a large number of officials and authorities. The Constitution, therefore, requires and so
did the Rules of Business framed by the Rajpramukh of Pepsu provide, that the action must be
taken by the authority concerned in the name of the Rajpramukh. It is not till this formality is
observed that the action can be regarded as that of the State or here, by the Rajpramukh. We may
further observe that, constitutionally speaking, the Minister is no more than an adviser and that
the Head of the State, the Governor or Rajpramukh (till the abolition of that office by the
amendment of the Constitution in 1956), is to act with the aid and advice of his Council of
Ministers. Therefore, until such advice is accepted by the Governor whatever the Minister or the
Council of Ministers may say in regard to a particular matter does not become the action of the
State until the advice of the Council of Ministers is accepted or deemed to be accepted by the
Head of the State. Indeed, it is possible that after expressing one opinion about a particular
4
matter at a particular stage a Minister or the Council of Ministers may express quite a different
opinion, one which may be completely opposed to the earlier opinion. Which of them can be
regarded as the order of the State Government? Therefore, to make the opinion amount to a
decision of the Government it must be communicated to the person concerned.
D.K Basu V. State of West Bengal
In support of prayer Nos.2 and 3, petitioner has contended that he has been illegally apprehended
by officials of Central Bureau of Investigation - respondent Nos.2 and 3 and as such, a writ of
mandamus is sought for appropriate action being taken against respondent Nos.2 and 3 by R-1
for violation of 4 right of petitioner while taking into custody illegally and assigning it is in
violation of guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu V. State of
Bengal reported in AIR 1997 SC 610.
K.V Rajalakshmiah Shetty & Another V. State of Mysore & Another

Another principle in the matter of issuance of writ of mandamus is that such a writ will not lie to
seek or enforce a mere concession or a relaxation. For a writ of mandamus to issue, the right
claimed must be judicially enforceable and legally protected. In case of Rajalakshmia v. State of
Mysore - AIR 1967 SC 993, a concession was extended in favor of one batch of employees. The
applicants who were left out applied for a writ of mandamus. However, such writ was declined
by observing that a concession could not be claimed as a matter of right by a writ of mandamus.
Similarly, for a writ of mandamus to issue, it has to be established that there is dereliction of a
legal duty. The duty which can be enforced by a writ of mandamus must be legal and not merely
moral, equitable or permissible.

Icfai Law School Icfai University, Dehradun

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Icfai Law School Icfai University, Dehradun

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICFAI LAW SCHOOL

ICFAI UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN

TOPIC- Writ of Mandamus

SUBMITTED BY: SUSHALI SHRUTI SUBMITTED TO: DR. VAGISH UPADHYAY

Types of Writs in India:

Mandamuses a command issued by a court to an authority directing it to perform a public duty

Facts about Mandamus in India:

Unlike Habeas Corpus, Mandamus cannot be issued against a private individual.

Mandamus cannot be issued in the following cases:

 To enforce departmental instruction that does not possess statutory force

Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. V. UOI & ORS:

State of Punjab V. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh

K.V Rajalakshmiah Shetty & Another V. State of Mysore & Another

You might also like