2016 Supreme(SC) 222

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
Suresh Chand Gautam – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 690, 715, 273 of 2015
Decided On : 11-3-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
A binding precedent, referring in detail all other binding previous authorities of larger Benches, and followed in number of authorities does not require reconsideration.
Contention that the provisions remained in force till the State omits it by an omission despite Court holding it ultra vires cannot be accepted.
Prospective ruling has to be expressly stated in the judgment.
Issuing Mandamus is discretionary. May be issued to compel the authorities to do something, only if the statute imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance.
Mandamus cannot be issued to carry out an exercise for the purpose of exercising a discretion.

Headnote:(a) Administration of Justice – Reference to larger Bench – Contention of M. Nagaraj requiring reconsideration by larger Bench – Repelled on ground of being a binding precedent followed in number of authorities – Also it referred to, in detail, all other binding previous authorities of larger Benches – Held, M. Nagaraj does not require reconsideration. (Para 2)

       (2006) 8 SCC 212 – Referred

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 16(4) – Court in M. Nagraj holding constitutional provision as enabling one – Directing that reservations can be made provided certain quantifiable data are collected and analysed – Section 3(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 and Rule 8-A of U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 providing for reservation without following dictum of M. Nagraj – Decision in Rajesh Kumar holding section 3(7) and Rule 8-A ultra vires – Contention that the provisions remained in force till the State omits it by an omission rejected – The provisions lost force forthwith on being declared ultra vires – Prospective ruling – Has to be expressly stated in the judgment – Rajesh Kumar did not save entire past promotions – Rather it allowed limited sphere of saving – Prospectivity is not inhered. (Para 15, 16, 18)

       (2006) 8 SCC 212; (2012) 7 SCC 1; (2001) 6 SCC 89; (2003) 7 SCC 517 – Relied upon

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Mandamus – Mandamus is discretionary – May be issued to compel the authorities to do something, only if the statute imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. (Para 37, 39)

       (1986) 4 SCC 632; (1973) 1 SCC 485; 1962 Supp. 2 SCR 144; (1978) 1 SCC 1; (2002) 4 SCC 638 – Relied upon

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 16, 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) – “Power coupled with duty” – Articles being enabling provisions, there is no power coupled with duty – No right accrues in absence of a provision – Instantly relief is not sought on basis of any provision – Grievance pertains to steps being not taken to collect quantifiable data as envisaged in M. Nagaraj – State not bound to make reservation – It has a discretion to do so which can only be exercised on certain conditions being satisfied – Petitioners pray for issue of mandamus to carry out an exercise for the purpose of exercising a discretion – A writ of mandamus is sought to collect material or data, the condition precedent for exercising a discretion which flows from the enabling constitutional provision – Principle of exercise of power coupled with duty not attracted – Mandamus cannot issue. (Para 42)

       (1971) 1 SCC 85; (1987) 1 SCC 213; AIR 1966 SC 296; (1880) 5 AC 214; (2014) 1 SCC 554; (2007) 8SCC 338; (1995) 1 SCC 574; (1890) 44 Ch D 262 (CA); [1968] 1 All ER 694 (HL); AIR 1952 SC 16; (1980) 4 SCC 162; (2015) 8 SCC 744; (2010) 11 SCC 493; AIR 2009 SC 187; (2013) 6 SCC 770; AIR 1950 SC 222; AIR 1992 SC 320; AIR 1980 SC 1682; (2013) 9 SCC 136; 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87; (1993) 4 SCC 441; (2012) 2 SCC 688; (1971) 2 QB 175; (2014) 4 SCC 61; (2011) 7 SCC 338; 2015 (1) SCALE 169 – Relied upon

       (2012) 6 SCC 502 – Distinguished

       (e) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Judicial review – Courts neither formulate policies nor legislate – To issue mandamus to collect the data will be in a way, entering into the domain of legislation, for it is a step towards commanding to frame a legislation or a delegated legislation for reservation. (Para 43)

       (2015) 2 SCC 796 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       In this batch of Writ Petitions preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the prayer relates to issue of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to enforce appropriately the constitutional mandate as contained under the provisions of Articles 16(4-A), 16(4-B) and 335 of the Constitution of India or, in the alternative, directing the respondents to constitute a Committee or appoint a Commission chaired either by a retired Judge of the High Court or Supreme Court in making survey and collecting necessary qualitative data of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the services of the State for granting reservation in promotion in the light of direction gives by this Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.

       Finding of the Court:

       Mandamus cannot be issued to carry out an exercise for the purpose of exercising a discretion.

       Result: Petitions dismissed.