SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(All) 924

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.M. Lal, J.
RAMESH PRASAD TYAGI - Appellant
Vs.
DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS AND OTHERS - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 28294 of 1991
Decided On : 26-09-1991

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : B.D. Mandhyan and S.C. Mandhyan, Adv.

Headnote:

mandamus - education services commission - The court dismissed the petition for a writ of mandamus as there was no prior demand made before filing the petition, which is a settled proposition of law for seeking such relief.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools to extend the order attesting his signatures till regular selection is made by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petition as no prior demand by way of any representation had been made, which is a necessary requirement for seeking a writ of mandamus.

Issues: The main issue was the lack of a prior demand for performance of the duty before filing the petition for a writ of mandamus.

Ratio Decidendi: The settled proposition of law for seeking a writ of mandamus requires a distinct demand for performance of the duty prior to filing the petition, which must be met by a refusal.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed on the ground of the absence of a prior demand, making it difficult to grant the prayer made in the petition.

JUDGMENT :

B.M. Lal, J.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr (Respondent No. 1) to extend the order attesting his signatures till regular selection is made by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission.

2. The settled proposition of law while seeking a writ of mandamus, is that the petition for such relief must be preceded by a distinct demand for performance of the duty, in order to give the party an opportunity to consider whether he should comply or not, and such demand must be shown to have been met by a refusal, so that the court may be satisfied that the party com planed of is determined not to do what is demanded. See Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), (1974) 2 SCC 630. In other words there must be a demand prior to filing the petition in court.

3. In the instant case, no demand by way of any representation has been made, and therefore it is difficult to grant the prayer made in this petition. On this ground alone, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top