Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 75 [Writ of Mandamus]

The writ of mandamus is one of the five constitutional writs available in India. The word “mandamus” means “we command”. It is issued by a court directing a public authority, government officer, statutory body or inferior court to perform a public or legal duty that it has failed or refused to perform.

The Supreme Court may issue a writ of mandamus under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights. High Courts have wider powers under Article 226 and may issue mandamus for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as other legal rights.

For mandamus to be issued, the petitioner must establish that a legal right exists in their favour and that the respondent has a corresponding legal duty. The duty must generally be mandatory rather than discretionary. Before approaching the court, the petitioner should ordinarily demand the performance of the duty, and the concerned authority must have refused or failed to act.

Mandamus is commonly issued against government departments, public officials, statutory authorities, universities, municipal bodies and tribunals. It may direct an authority to decide a pending application, release a benefit required by law, consider a matter according to legal rules or exercise a power that the authority has unlawfully refused to exercise.

However, mandamus cannot ordinarily be issued against a private person who does not perform a public duty. It also cannot compel the President of India or a State Governor to exercise their constitutional powers. Courts generally do not issue mandamus to direct a public authority to decide a matter in a particular way when the authority has lawful discretion. The court may require the authority to exercise its discretion fairly, but it will not ordinarily substitute its own decision for that of the authority.

In Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual, the Supreme Court explained that mandamus may be issued against a person or body performing a public duty, even when that body is not formally a statutory authority. However, the duty sought to be enforced must be public in nature.

In Comptroller and Auditor-General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, the Supreme Court held that courts may issue mandamus where a public authority fails to exercise its discretion lawfully. The court may direct the authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and, in appropriate circumstances, may issue further directions necessary to prevent injustice.

In Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, the Supreme Court adopted a broad interpretation of mandamus. It held that the writ may be issued against any body performing a public duty, even if it is not created by a statute. Therefore, the nature of the duty is more important than the formal legal status of the body.

Thus, the writ of mandamus is an important judicial remedy against administrative inaction. It ensures that public authorities perform their legal obligations and do not defeat legal rights through delay, refusal or arbitrary conduct.

Questions

Question 1

Aarav applied to a municipal corporation for a building completion certificate. He submitted all documents required under the municipal rules. The rules state that the corporation must either issue the certificate or communicate the reasons for rejection within 30 days. Even after four months and several written reminders, the corporation neither decided the application nor provided any explanation. Aarav approaches the High Court.

Which of the following is the most appropriate decision?

A. The High Court cannot interfere because the corporation has complete discretion over all building matters.

B. The High Court must itself issue the building completion certificate to Aarav.

C. The High Court may issue mandamus directing the corporation to decide the application according to law within a reasonable period.

D. Mandamus cannot be issued because Aarav’s dispute concerns property and not a fundamental right.

Question 2

Meera works for a private clothing company. Her employment agreement provides that she may receive a performance bonus if the company’s management considers her work satisfactory. The company refuses to pay her a bonus. Meera directly files a writ petition seeking mandamus against the company, alleging that she performed better than every other employee.

Which of the following is the most appropriate conclusion?

A. Mandamus must be issued because every employer has a public duty to reward efficient employees.

B. Mandamus must be issued because Meera has alleged unequal treatment.

C. Mandamus will ordinarily not be issued because the dispute concerns a private contractual obligation and no public duty is involved.

D. Mandamus will be issued because High Courts may enforce every contractual promise under Article 226.

Question 3

Kabir applies for a government scholarship. The applicable rules require the Scholarship Committee to consider income, academic performance and disability while selecting candidates. The Committee rejects Kabir’s application without examining his disability certificate, even though the certificate was submitted on time. Kabir does not ask the court to grant the scholarship directly. He only requests that his application be reconsidered according to the rules.

What is the most appropriate remedy?

A. The court may issue mandamus directing the Committee to reconsider Kabir’s application by applying all relevant criteria.

B. The court must grant the scholarship because Kabir has a disability certificate.

C. The court cannot issue mandamus because scholarship decisions are always beyond judicial review.

D. The court may punish the Committee members but cannot direct reconsideration.

Question 4

Naina applies for a licence to operate a riverside restaurant. The law authorises the Environmental Board to grant or reject such licences after considering pollution, public safety and ecological impact. Naina asks the High Court to issue mandamus directing the Board to grant her the licence immediately, without allowing the Board to assess the environmental consequences.

Which of the following is correct?

A. The court must grant the licence because Naina has applied for it.

B. The court must issue mandamus directing the Board to ignore environmental concerns.

C. The court cannot ask the Board to consider the application because licensing is an administrative matter.

D. The court may direct the Board to exercise its discretion lawfully, but it ordinarily cannot compel the Board to grant the licence.

Question 5

Rohan is a retired government employee. A statutory pension rule states that every eligible employee shall receive pension within three months of retirement. Rohan fulfils all the conditions, but the department withholds his pension for two years without giving any reason. His repeated representations receive no response.

Which of the following is the most appropriate legal position?

A. The High Court may issue mandamus directing the department to perform its statutory duty and process Rohan’s pension.

B. Mandamus cannot be issued because pension is merely a charitable payment.

C. Rohan must wait until the department voluntarily considers his claim.

D. Only the Supreme Court may issue mandamus in pension matters.

Answers and Explanations

1. Correct Answer: C

The municipal rules impose a legal duty on the corporation to decide Aarav’s application within the prescribed period. Aarav has submitted the necessary documents and has repeatedly requested action. The corporation’s prolonged silence amounts to a failure to perform its public duty.

The High Court may therefore issue mandamus directing the corporation to consider and decide the application according to law. However, the court would not normally issue the completion certificate itself because the corporation must first examine whether all legal conditions have been satisfied.

Option D is incorrect because a High Court may issue mandamus under Article 226 for the enforcement of legal rights, even when no fundamental right is directly involved.

2. Correct Answer: C

Mandamus is generally issued to enforce a public or statutory duty. Meera’s claim arises from a private employment agreement with a private clothing company. The performance bonus is also discretionary under the contract.

Since the company is not shown to be performing a public function and the duty is purely contractual, a writ of mandamus would ordinarily not be maintainable. Meera may pursue an appropriate contractual or employment remedy before the competent forum.

The mere existence of alleged unfairness does not convert a private contractual dispute into a public law matter.

3. Correct Answer: A

The Scholarship Committee has discretion to select eligible candidates, but that discretion must be exercised according to the applicable rules. The Committee ignored Kabir’s disability certificate, even though disability was a relevant factor required to be considered.

The court may issue mandamus directing the Committee to reconsider the application fairly and lawfully. However, the court should not automatically grant the scholarship because the Committee must consider all relevant factors, including income and academic performance.

This reflects the principle recognised in Comptroller and Auditor-General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, where the Supreme Court held that mandamus may be issued when a public authority fails to exercise its discretion lawfully.

4. Correct Answer: D

The Environmental Board has statutory discretion to grant or reject the licence after considering several factors. Mandamus cannot ordinarily be used to compel a public authority to exercise its discretion in one particular manner.

The High Court may direct the Board to consider Naina’s application, avoid irrelevant factors and make a reasoned decision according to law. However, it cannot ordinarily order the Board to grant the licence without conducting the legally required environmental assessment.

Mandamus ensures that discretion is exercised. It does not usually eliminate lawful discretion.

5. Correct Answer: A

The pension rule creates a clear statutory duty. Rohan is eligible, and the department is legally required to process his pension within three months. Its unexplained delay of two years amounts to a failure to perform a mandatory public duty.

The High Court may issue mandamus directing the department to process and release the pension according to law. Pension is not a charitable payment. It is a legal entitlement arising from service and the applicable rules.

Option D is incorrect because High Courts have wide powers under Article 226 to issue mandamus for the enforcement of statutory and legal rights.