Allahabad High Court
Ghasita vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21686 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ghasita
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Chaube
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar,Nand Kishore Singh
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
2. The case of petitioner is that Respondents-7 and 8 have submitted forged papers before Respondent-6 and complaining about the said illegality he has made several complaints but no action has been taken by authorities concerned and instead Respondents-7 and 8 have unauthorizedly occupied the land of Gaon Sabha and opened an educational institution thereon and matter required inquiry since unauthorized act of Respondents-7 and 8 is in collusion with Gram Pradhan and area Lekhpal. Petitioner, therefore, has sought a mandamus commanding Respondents-2 to 5 to make an inquiry in the matter with regard to Gata No. 1537 area .01452 hectare and take appropriate action against Respondents-7 and 8. He also sought a mandamus commanding Respondents-2 and 3 to decide petitioner's representation dated 02.08.2018.
3. We find that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in view of above facts, is thoroughly misconceived inasmuch as if there is any fraud or forgery on the part of Respondents-7 and 8, i.e., private parties, it is always open to petitioner to avail criminal as well as civil remedies, i.e., by lodging First Information Report or if police is not registering First Information Report, to file application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Magistrate or even to file criminal complaint. On the civil side, petitioner has remedy of taking appropriate action in Civil Court by seeking declaration or cancellation of alleged forged documents. If petitioner has any grievance against Gram Pradhan concerned, he has remedy to make complaint following the procedure prescribed under U.P Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 but none of the said steps have been taken and instead writ petition has been filed straightaway without showing under which provision Respondents-2 to 5 can be directed to make inquiry though no steps as prescribed under law have been taken by petitioner in this regard.
4. Even representation could not shown to have been made under any statutory provision. In order to seek a writ of mandamus petitioner must show that he is enforcing his legal right and respondents are under statutory obligation to perform in a particular manner. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and another, (2008) 2 SCC 280, Court after referring to its earlier judgements in Bihar Eastern Gangetic fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 145; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalwani Vs. N.M. Shah, AIR 1966 SC 334 and Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs. State of Bihar, 1973 (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. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate Tribunals and officer exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance........" (emphasis added)
5. In view of above, writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019
AK
