Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 4150 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1194 of 2009
 
Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.K. Yadav,R.K.Singh,S.R. Singh,V.K. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. It is admitted by petitioner that on the post of Panchayat Mitra in question, some other person has been appointed, but his appointment is not under challenge. The only relief sought in the writ petition is that respondent no. 2 be directed, by issuing a writ of mandamus, to decide petitioner's representation dated 11.1.2007 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) but despite query, learned counsel for petitioner could not tell as to under which provision he has made the said representation. Non statutory representation does not entitle the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to decide the same.

2. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus would lie only if the petitioners are enforcing a legal right and the respondents, who are under statutory obligation to do or not to do something, have failed to do so.

3. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and another,(2008)2 SCC 280 decided on 8.1.2008 the Apex Court after referring to its earlier judgments in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh (1977) 4 SCC 145; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani Vs. N.M. Shah, AIR 1966 SC 334, Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs. State of Bihar 1993(1) SCC 485 observed as under:

"There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation."

4. In view of above, I find no merit in this writ petition. Dismissed.

Dt. 07.08.2014

PS-1194/09