AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Markendey Katju, C.J.—This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to correct the presently prevailing method of worship in
Hindu temples in the State of Tamil Nadu. We are afraid we cannot issue any such direction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
It has been held by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. Millenium Business
Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2004 (5) SCC 689, that a writ petition can only lie when there is some statutory duty and there is a failure on the part of some
official to discharge the statutory duty. The Division Bench relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Bihar Eastern Gangetic
Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh and Others, , wherein the Supreme Court observed,
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 officers 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. (See Lekhraj
Satramdas, Lalvani Vs. Deputy Custodian-cum-managing Officer and Others, , Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda
College, , and Dr. Umakant Saran Vs. State of Bihar and Others, . In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent No. 1 that there is any
statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an
obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that
respondent No. 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not
competent to issue the same.
In view of the above decision, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it is open to the writ petitioner to file a civil suit.
Consequently, the WPMP. No. 38199 of 2004 is dismissed.