No writ of mandamus lies to compel consideration of a mercy petition absent statutory obligation on authorities.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the Mercy Petition filed before the first respondent on 12.09.2018 as expediously as possible.

2. The petitioner herein, while working as Police Constable, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings resulting in imposition of punishment by order dated 28.05.2013. Subsequently, the said punishment was modified and reduced by the third respondent on 27.08.2013. It was thereafter the petitioner stated to have been acquitted in C.C.No.176 of 2013 by order dated 03.05.2017. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a Mercy Petition before the second respondent and the said Mercy Petition was rejected by the second respondent through proceedings in RC.No.196331/AP. 3(1)2017 dated 15.06.2018. It was thereafter the petitioner stated to have submitted yet another Mercy Petition before the first respondent on 12.09.2018. As the said Mercy Petition has not been considered by the first respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking writ of mandamus.

3. In order to issue a writ of mandamus, first of all, there should be an obligation cast upon the State authorities to discharge a public duty. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no Rule which provides consideration of Mercy Petition filed by the petitioner. In the absence of any provision casting an obligation on the first respondent to consider the Mercy Petition stated to have been filed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to issue writ of mandamus as sought in the present writ petition. The impugned punishment in question was imposed as early as in the month of May 2013 and the same was confirmed on 15.06.2018. The petitioner herein instead of challenging the said proceeding date 15.06.2018 appears to have submitted yet another Mercy Petition before the first respondent without there being any provision under law.

4. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Mercy Petition filed by the petitioner is totally misconceived. So also, the present writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that in case, the petitioner intends to take any further steps against the proceedings dated 15.06.2018 issued by the second respondent, it is open for the petitioner to take such steps in accordance with law. No costs.