Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7370 of 2018 Petitioner :- Subedar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary Revenue Deptt And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tara Chand Kaushal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. This is thoroughly misconceived and ill advised petition. The grievance of petitioner is that Gram Pradhan is removing brick soling, which was constructed 20 years back. If any illegal action amounting to any offence is being done, remedy lies to the petitioner to initiate criminal proceedings.
3. The alleged representation dated 05.01.2018 has been sent to the District Magistrate. Despite repeated query, counsel for the petitioner could not show under which provision the same is referable.
4. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus would lie only if petitioner is enforcing a legal right and the respondents, who are under statutory obligation to do or not to do something, have failed to do so.
5. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and another (2008) 2 SCC 280 the Apex Court after referring to its earlier judgments in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh (1977) 4 SCC 145; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani Vs. N.M. Shah, AIR 1966 SC 334 and Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs. State of Bihar 1993(1) " There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation."
6. The above exposition of law makes it clear that writ of mandamus cannot be issued on mere asking unless the pre- conditions are satisfied.
7. Since, in the present case these conditions are not satisfied, the petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 KA