Mandamus cannot be issued without establishing a clear legal right and corresponding public duty; the petitioner's failure to show eligibility undermines the request.

ORDER :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

The order impugned in the present petition arises out of an endorsement wherein the subject matter property bearing Sy.No.507 was handed over to the City Municipal Council, Mandya. The petitioner has assailed the said endorsement and, in consequence, has sought issuance of a writ of mandamus to restrain respondent No.7 – the Commissioner of City Municipal Council, Mandya, from allotting any sites to beneficiaries other than those already identified and recommended by the erstwhile Chikkamandya Grama Panchayat.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Perused the statement of objections filed by the State and the affidavit of status report placed on record.

3. Before adverting to the reliefs sought in the present writ petition, it becomes necessary for this Court to examine the earlier proceedings arising out of the very same subject matter, particularly the orders passed by the Writ Court and the subsequent directions issued by the Contempt Court, which have a direct bearing on the present dispute.

4. The first mandamus in this regard was issued by the Writ Court, as evidenced at Annexure–C to the petition. The said proceedings were instituted by Chikkamandya Village Citizens’ Welfare Association, and not by the present petitioner association. As the order is brief yet significant, the same is extracted herein for ready reference:

“ORDER

1. Chikkamandya Village Citizens’ Welfare Association, which is stated to be a registered Association Chikkamandya Village, Mandya District, has filed this Writ Petition in public interest seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 6 with regard to allotment of sites in Sy.No.507, admeasuring 30 acres at Chikkamandya to the houseless, site less, and low income group persons who had applied for sites under various housing schemes of State Government such as Ashraya scheme.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on advance notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4 states on instruction from the legal advisor to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, and in the presence of the Project Director of Ashraya scheme that although the applications for allotment of sites have been pending for considerable length of time and steps would be taken for expeditious allotment of sites to the eligible persons by identifying them on conducting an enquiry, within a period of three months.

3. Statements of learned Additional Government Advocate made on instructions are placed on record.

4. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition would not call for any further consideration except to direct the respondents concerned to complete the allotment of sites to eligible persons in an expeditious manner and within a period of three months from today.

Writ Petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms.”

5. It appears that despite the direction issued by the Writ Court, the authorities did not implement the order, compelling the Chikkamandya Village Citizens’ Welfare Association to initiate contempt proceedings in CCC No.998/2014. During the contempt proceedings, the State took a fresh stand, contending that the land in question had since been handed over to the City Municipal Council (CMC), Mandya, and that the responsibility to identify and allot sites to site-less persons now vested with the CMC. The order in the contempt proceedings dated 29.10.2014 would be relevant and the same is extracted as under:

“ORDER ON IA NO.1/2014

This court in CCC NO.998/2014