Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, D. Shankar, claiming to hold a quarrying license dated 28.09.2015, approached the High Court of Karnataka under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking two sets of reliefs: firstly, a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities (the Senior Geologist and the Director of Mines and Geology) to allow him to carry out quarrying activities as per his license; and secondly, damages to the tune of Rs. 80 lakhs. At the preliminary hearing conducted via video conference, the court observed that before filing the petition, the petitioner had not made any representation to the respondents placing his grievance on record and calling upon them to perform their statutory duty. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited and Others v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630, and in particular paragraphs 23 and 24 thereof, the court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be entertained unless such a prior demand is made. Consequently, the prayers for mandamus were declined. As for the claim for damages, the court noted that its consideration would require adjudication upon disputed questions of fact, a task not suitable for writ jurisdiction. The court observed that this relief could be more appropriately claimed by approaching the civil court. Subject to these observations, the court declined to entertain the petition and disposed of it accordingly. The judgment left the petitioner free to pursue his remedies either by making a representation to the authorities for the mandamus-related relief or by filing a civil suit for damages. The decision was rendered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice M. Nagaprasanna, after hearing counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Requirement of Prior Representation - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner had not made any representation placing on record his grievance and calling upon the respondents to perform their statutory duty before seeking a writ of mandamus. Following the decision in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited vs Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630, the court declined to entertain the mandamus prayer. Held: A writ of mandamus cannot be sought without first making a representation demanding performance of the statutory duty. (Paras 2-3) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Damages Claim Involving Disputed Facts - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner sought damages of Rs. 80 lakhs. The court held that consideration of such a prayer involves adjudication on disputed questions of fact, and therefore the relief can be more appropriately claimed by approaching the civil court. Held: A claim for damages involving disputed facts is not maintainable in writ proceedings. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued when the petitioner has not made any prior representation to the respondents; and whether a claim for damages involving disputed questions of fact can be entertained in writ proceedings
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed of. The prayers for mandamus are not entertained due to failure to make a prior representation, and the prayer for damages is not entertained as it involves disputed questions of fact, leaving the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the civil court.
Law Points
- Mandamus not maintainable without prior representation and demand for performance of statutory duty
- Damages involving disputed questions of fact are more appropriately claimed before civil court
