- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sri. D.L Chowda Redd... v. The State Of Kar. By...
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners, employed as Head Master, Assistant Teachers, and P.E. Teacher at Gnana Bharathi Higher Primary School, Munganahalli, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to recognize their service from the date of their initial appointment rather than from the date their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid. This recognition was sought for purposes of computing pay-scale, seniority, and other service benefits. The writ petitions challenge the respondents' refusal to consider their initial appointment dates for these benefits.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to take into account the petitioners' service from the date of their initial appointment rather than from the date their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid.
- Whether the petitioners had fulfilled the prerequisite of making a demand on the respondents for performance of the legal duty before approaching the Court for mandamus.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., AIR 1961 SC 1633 | No mandamus will be issued unless the applicant has made a distinct demand on the appropriate authorities for the relief sought and such demand has been refused. | The Court relied on this principle to hold that since the petitioners did not make any demand before filing the writ petitions, mandamus could not be granted. |
| Union Of India v. Binny Ltd., ILR 1990 KAR 1297 | A writ of mandamus must be preceded by a demand and refusal for the relief sought. | The Court applied this precedent to reinforce that the absence of any demand by the petitioners precluded the issuance of mandamus. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court emphasized the foundational legal principle that a writ of mandamus is a remedy to compel performance of a legal duty and is only issued when the petitioner has a legal right, the respondent has a corresponding legal duty, and there has been a refusal to perform that duty despite a demand. Citing authoritative precedents, the Court underscored that no mandamus can be granted unless a distinct prior demand has been made and refused. Since the petitioners failed to allege or prove that they made any such demand to the respondents before approaching the Court, the writ petitions were not maintainable. Consequently, the Court rejected the petitions while leaving open the option for the petitioners to first approach the respondents to seek performance of the alleged legal duty.
Holding and Implications
The writ petitions are rejected.
This decision directly affects the petitioners by denying the mandamus relief sought due to procedural non-compliance (absence of prior demand). The Court did not establish any new legal precedent but reaffirmed the settled principle that mandamus requires a prior demand and refusal. The petitioners retain the liberty to approach the respondents to seek the performance of their alleged legal duty.
CASES REFERRED AT PARAS 1. AIR 1961 SC 1633 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., (Ref) 3 2. ILR 1990 KAR 1297 Union Of India v. Binny Ltd.*, (Ref) 4
Sri G.B Maruthi & Sri M.N Vijay Kumar, Advocates for Petitioners;
Smt. Manjula R. Kamadolli, HCGP for Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Venugopala Gowda, J.:— The petitioners are working as Head Master, Assistant Teachers and P.E Teacher respectively in Gnana Bharathi Higher Primary School, Munganahalli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. The prayer in the writ petitions is for a mandamus directing the respondents to take into account the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial entry i.e, from the date of appointment, instead of from the date their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid i.e, for the purposes of computing the pay-scale, seniority and other consequential service benefits.
2. The object of issue of writ of mandamus is to compel performance of a legal duty. A mandamus will be issued to a person aggrieved who approaches the Court, if he makes out (i) existence of a legal right in him and a corresponding obligation on the respondent to perform a legal duty and (ii) refusal, either express or implied, by the respondent to perform such duty, in spite of a demand. Where a petition seeking mandamus is not preceded by demand for performance of a legal duty, the Court cannot entertain such a petition.
3. In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. . AIR 1961 SC 1633, the Apex Court held as follows:
“27………it is well settled that no mandamus will be issued unless the applicant had made a distinct demand on the appropriate authorities for the very reliefs which he seeks to enforce by mandamus and that had been refused.”
4. In Union Of India v. Binny Ltd.* . ILR 1990 KAR 1297, it has been held as follows:
“ 9. … It is also well settled that as far as prayer for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus is concerned, it should always be preceded by a demand and refusal.”
5. In these petitions, there is no averment that the petitioners had made a demand on the respondents to perform any legal duty. Since the petitioners have not made any demand with the respondents, the writ petitions for issue of writ of mandamus are liable to be rejected.
In the result, the petitions are rejected, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondents seeking performance of the obligation/legal duty, if any.
Alert