Concept of Mandamus - Indian Laws - General

Concept of Mandamus In Halsbury s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 1, it has been stated: 89. Nature of mandamus. The order of mandamus [see District Board v. LCC (1989) 82 LT 306; R v. Marshland Smeeth and Fen District Commr. [1920] 1 KB 155, DC] is of a most extensive remedial nature, and is, in form, a command issuing from the High Court of Justice, directed to any person, corporation, or inferior tribunal, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. Its purpose is to remedy defects of justice and accordingly it will issue, to the end that justice may be done, in all cases where there is a specific legal right and no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right[R v. Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of London (1812) 15 East 117, at 136]; and it may issue in cases where, although there is an alternative legal remedy yet that mode of redress is less convenient beneficial and effectual [R. v. Bank of England (1819) 2 B and Ald 620, at 622; R v. Thomas (1892) 1 QB 426]. [ SURESH CHAND GAUTAM VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.- 2016 (3) TMI 1472 - SUPREME COURT] In State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmikutt - 1986 (11) TMI 393 - SUPREME COURT , while dealing with the concept of mandamus, opined thus: It is well settled that a writ of mandamus is not a writ of course or a writ of right, but is, as a rule, discretionary. There must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which a mandamus will lie. The legal right to enforce the performance of a duty must be in the applicant himself. In general, therefore, the court will only enforce the performance of statutory duties by public bodies on application of a person who can show that he has himself a legal right to insist on such performance.