AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.A. Bobde, J.—Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. We are not inclined to entertain this petition as prayed in view of the Judgment in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial proceeding was before the High Court. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of Mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury''s Laws of England (3rd edition, Vol. 13, p.106):
As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that demand was met by a refusal
The learned Advocate General stated that the petitioner has not furnished sufficient details in paragraph 4 of the petition to enable the authority to take necessary action.
In these circumstances, we are inclined to direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, to take action in accordance with law. Such an action shall be taken within a period of 12 weeks. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent, the Chief Town Planner on 27th September, 2012. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.