JUDGMENT :

Patel J.

1. The Petition is filed by a Federation of Retail Traders Welfare Association and an individual. It seeks to challenge Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2018 framed under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Act, 2017. The Petition says that this Rule is ultra vires Articles 13, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and, for some reason that we cannot readily appreciate, Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Then there is a prayer for a mandamus without a preceding demand for justice, although this has long been settled to be essential before a mandamus can be sought, to restrain Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from taking any steps to implement the Rule. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra and the Respondent No.2 is the Mumbai Municipal Corporation.

2. It seems now to have become a habit in this Court to seek the high prerogative remedy of a mandamus without averring that the petitioner has made a demand for justice but this has been denied; or even making a demand at all, let alone explaining how the case fits in the few limited and well-known exceptions to the general rule. So far, we have allowed petitioners to make the necessary amendments. But this dereliction persists, as if writ law of several centuries’ vintage is utterly inconsequential. So that there is absolutely no mistaking us on this score, we list a few of the very many decisions that make it plain that a demand for justice and its refusal are a sine-qua-non for the grant of a mandamus: Commissioner of Income Tax v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd.,, (1962) 1 SCR 788. “…it is well settled that no mandamus will be issued unless the applicant had made a distinct demand on the appropriate authorities for the very reliefs which he seeks to enforce by mandamus and that had been refused.” ; Kamini Kumar Das Choudhary v State of West Bengal & Ors., (1972) 2 SCC 420; Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd & Ors v Union of India, , (1974) 2 SCC 630; State of Haryana v Subhash Chander Marwaha & Ors., (1974) 3 SCC 220; Amrit Lal Berry v Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi & Ors., (1975) 4 SCC 714.“…a demand for justice and its refusal must precede the filing of a petition asking for a direction or writ of mandamus…”State of Haryana & Anr v Chanan Mal & Ors., (1977) 1 SCC 340 ; Mani Subrat Jain & Ors v State of Harayana & Ors., (1977) 1 SCC 486. “… It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something…” RXA De Monte Furtado v Administrator, Goa, Daman & Diu & Ors., 1982 SCC OnLine Bom 316 : (1983) 2 LLN 623 : 1983 Lab IC 1329. ; Director of Settlements, AP & Ors v MR Apparao & Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 638; paragraph 17 ; Sesa Shipping Ltd & Anr v Board of Trustees of the Port of Mormugao & Anr., (2003) 105 (1) Bom LR 61 ; Jaripatka Dalit Kalyan Mahila M&al v State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2004) 5 Bom CR 441; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd & Anr v State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2009) 4 Bom CR 616 : 2009 SCC Online Bom 756; Qambeer Jeevaji & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2010) 5 Mah LJ 484 : (2011) 3 Bom CR 299; The United Goans. Shanti Concern v Chief Secretary, Government of Goa & Ors., 2012 SCC Online Bom 1325 Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation & Anr v Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd & Anr., (2013) 5 SCC 470; Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation v Subhash Sindhi CHSL, Jaipur & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 427 ; Rajesh Punraj Khobragade & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2016 SCC Online Bom 5798 ; Warsi CHS (Proposed) v Mumbai Municipa