Jeevan Devi Panwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7530 MP

                                  1                                WA-1088-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 WA No. 1088 of 2021
    (JEEVAN DEVI PANWAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

1
Indore, Dated : 17-11-2021
      Shri Chandrakant Verma, learned counsel for the appellants.
      Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent-State.

Heard on admission.

This intra-court appeal takes exception to the order dated 27/10/2021

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5806/2021.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants preferred various representations before respondent No.3-Superientendent of Police, Mandsaur but none could fetch any result. Thus, learned Single Judge should have issued a writ of mandamus taking into account the constitutional provisions and directing the S.P. to decide their representations.

Prayer is opposed by learned Deputy Advocate General. The writ Court vide order dated 27/10/2021 opined that petitioners have a remedy under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. In view of that remedy, the writ

petition was not entertained.

This is trite that in order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandmus, the petitioner has to satisfy that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by party against whom he prayed for issuance of writ and such right must be subsisting on the date of representation. The other party against whom writ is prayed for must be under an obligation to act in a particular manner.

Despite repeated query from the bench, learned counsel for the appellants is unable to show any provision, which makes it obligatory for the Superintendent of Police to decided their representations.

In view of the judgments laid down in the case of Director Settlements A.P. Vs. M.R. Apparao 2002 (4) SCC 638, Bhartiya 2 WA-1088-2021 Kishan Sangh, District Bhind Vs. Union of India 2007 (4) MPLJ 548 and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Rafiqunnsia M. Khalifa ILR 2019 MP 742, we are of the view that in absence of showing necessary ingredients for issuance of writ of mandmus, no interference can be made.

Learned Single Judge has taken a plausible view and rightly held that

appellants have a remedy under the Cr.P.C. Thus, admission is declined.

The writ appeal is dismissed.

                                                                         (SUJOY PAUL)                                       (PRANAY VERMA)
                                                                            JUDGE                                                 JUDGE

                                                           vc




VARSHA      Digitally signed by VARSHA CHATURVEDI

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE,

CHATURVED postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=df59fbf0f5c7485addc8affe3edf20e67d11d7f91045d8113 9f6792fbd4ae91f, pseudonym=F29DF1B77616273C6A0CF86F33868DF0D9382C30, serialNumber=652FE82BC5CAE8153A1E34C3B8EFC095F5A0D144

I B089415F31342D1C8E2D3139, cn=VARSHA CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.11.18 13:59:42 +05'30'