The absence of a demand for justice is a prerequisite for the issue of a mandamus.

G.S. Patel, J.

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. The Petitioner makes a grievance that the 1st Respondent, the Village Panchayat of Anjuna-Caisua and the 2nd Respondent, its Secretary, are persistently in default of the provisions of Section 54 and Section 113-A of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and also of the Goa Panchayats (Meetings) Procedure Rules 1996. It is also alleged that these Respondents have disobeyed a Government Circular dated 10th October 2003 regarding the calling and conduct of fortnightly Panchayat meetings.

3. Our intervention is sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a mandamus against Respondents No.1 and 2 to comply with the Act, Rules and the circular; to order the inclusion of details of every subject on the agenda in future Panchayat meetings; and finally to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

4. There is one compelling reason to dismiss the petition in limine and that is because although there are prayers for an issue of a mandamus, nowhere in the petition do we find an averment that the Petitioner has demanded justice, but justice has been denied to him. This is a very old and established principle in writ law, but it seems to have fallen out of fashion these days. This is not an idle averment. It is an essential prerequisite to the issue of a mandamus and the law in that regard is extremely well settled. In RXA De Monte Furtado v Administrator, (1982 SCC OnLine Bom 316 : (1983) 2 LLN 623 : 1983 Lab IC 1329)this Court said:

10. Petitioner prays, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to deem that he still continues to hold a grade II post, that the impugned notification and orders shall not affect his services in any manner and that he be paid all the arrears of his salary from the date of the cancellation of his appointment to grade It post, it appears, however, that petitioner did not make, as he ought to nave made, a demand for justice and that such a demand had been refused. Not even an assertion exists in the petition that a representation against the alleged violation of rights has been made and hence, petitioner having failed to make such a demand is not entitled to any writ of mandamus. In fact as observed by the Karnataka High Court in A. Prabhacora Reddy v State:

“as a matter of rule, no High Court will issue a writ of mandamus unless the aggrieved person has made a written demand on the authorities concerned to enforce what he claims to be his legal right” the position having been made clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Lal v. Collector [(1975) 4 SCC 714 : A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 538] wherein their Lordships, once again, affirmed the rule, recognized by them in Kamini Kumar v. State of West Bengal [(1972) 2 SCC 420 : A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2060], that a demand for justice and its refusal must precede the filing of a petition asking for a direction or writ of mandamus.

(Emphasis added)

5. Mr Kamat seeks leave to amend. We grant leave. Amendment to be effected forthwith in Court without need of reverification.

6. As far as the Circular is concerned, a copy is at Exhibit A with a typed copy at pages 10-A to 10-B. On the face of it, the circular seems to require that in every Panchayat Agenda there should be complete details of construction licences, files to be discussed, purchases to be made, expenditure to be incurred and so on. The circular says that Panchayat Members should have access to such files and correspondence under discussion. It is on this basis that it is submitted that the Agenda itself of every meeting must necessarily contain not just the heads of the items to be taken up for discussion, but every single detail such as every single construction licence proposal or application, individual correspondence etc. All of this is sought to be traced to Section 113-A of the