IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope and limitations of a Writ of Mandamus, emphasizing that it is issued when a particular Officer refuses to exercise jurisdiction duly vested in him by Law, and that it cannot be used to direct an Officer to entertain a revision or review his own orders without statutory provision.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The Tahsildar has passed certain orders and has carried out mutation entries by recording the factum of lis-pendence. The Petitioner has moved an application/representation dated 23.03.2023 calling upon the Tahsildar to review his own orders and set aside the mutation entries that were carried out under his orders.

3. The learned AGP submits that merely because a representation is filed, does not mean that the Court should direct an Officer to entertain a revision. So also, this would amount to seeking a review by the Tahsildar of his own mutation entries.

4. We are of the view that, a Writ of Mandamus is issued when the Court notices that a particular Officer refuses to exercise jurisdiction duly vested in him by Law for deciding particular matters and in a particular manner, warranting the High Court to issue a ‘Command’ to ensure that he exercises the jurisdiction vested in him by Law. As such, issuance of such a command is a reprimand to a statutory authority/officer for not discharging or failing to discharge, the legal obligation of exercising jurisdiction duly vested in him by law.

5. It would be apposite to refer to a few judgments defining the scope of a Writ of Mandamus. In Naresh Kumar and Others Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) [(2019) 9 SCC 416], it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (3 Judges Bench) that, review is not an inherent power. It can be exercised only when the Statute provides for the same expressly / specifically or by necessary implication. In the absence of any such provision in the Statute, power of review cannot be exercised in case of judicial / quasi judicial orders. Exercise of powers of review in absence of express provision would be ultravirus, illegal and without jurisdiction.

6. In Sureshsing S/o. Sattarsingh Girase Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [2021 (6) Mh.L.J. 617], this Court concluded that review of earlier orders passed would be impermissible since the scope of review is a creation of the Statute and would flow only from the provision of Law. Power of review can be exercised only if the Statute so provides. Reference was made by this Court to the judgments delivered in (1) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta Vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (UP) and others [(1987) 4 SCC 525], (2) O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others, [(1987) 4 SCC 328], (3) Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Others [2010 Mh.L.J. Online (S.C.) 53 = (2010) 9 SCC 437], (4) Naresh Kumar and Others Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) (2019) Mh.L.J. Online (S.C.) 106 = (2019) 9 SCC 416.

7. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Mohd. Ismail and others [(1991) 3 SCC 239], the Hon’ble Supreme Court (3 Judges Bench) has concluded in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 as under :-

“11. The view taken by the High Court appears to be fallacious. The discretion conferred by Regulation 17(3) confers no vested right on the retrenched workmen to get an alternative job in the Corporation. Like all other statutory discretion in the administrative law, Regulation 17(3) creates no legal right in favour of a person in respect of whom the discretion is required to be exercised other than a right to have his case honestly considered for an alternative job by the Corporation.

12. The High Court was equally in error in directing the Corporation to offer alternative job to drivers who are found to be medically unfit before dispensing with their services. The Court cannot dictate the decision of the statutory authority that ought to be made in the exercise of discretion in a given case. The Court cannot direct the statutory authority to exercise the discretion in a particular manner not expressly required by law. The Court could only command the statutory authority by a writ of mandamus to perform its duty by exercising the discretion according to law. Whether alternative job is to be of