A writ of mandamus cannot compel interest absent an enforceable legal or contractual entitlement.

The petitioner purchased property at an auction conducted by the respondent-Bank in 2006. Although the sale deed was registered in his favour that year, possession was delivered only on 7 March 2011, due to pending proceedings and interim orders concerning the property.

The auction had been conducted on an “as is where is” basis, with participants informed of the pending litigation.

The petitioner had earlier pursued a consumer complaint concerning delayed possession. The National Commission allowed the Bank’s appeal and set aside the District Consumer Forum’s order, finding, among other things, that the complaint was time-barred and that the Bank’s inability to deliver possession during the pending litigation did not amount to wilful default.

The petitioner then sought a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to pay 12% annual interest on Rs. 10,15,000 for the period from 22 August 2006 to 7 March 2011.

Whether the petitioner could claim interest for the period during which possession was not delivered, despite registration of the sale deed in his favour.

Whether a writ of mandamus could issue directing the Bank to pay interest when the petitioner had not established an independent legal or contractual right to that interest and the National Commission had rejected the underlying grievance of deficiency.

A writ of mandamus requires an enforceable legal right in the petitioner and a corresponding legal obligation on the respondent; a time gap between registration of a sale deed and delivery of possession, without more, does not establish a right to interest.

The Court also treated the National Commission’s findings on the petitioner’s delayed-possession grievance as material: it had found that possession was delayed because of pending proceedings and operative interim orders, and that the delay was not attributable to wilful default by the Bank.

No separate statutory or contractual basis for the claimed interest was established.

The claimed interest arose from the same delayed-possession grievance already considered by the consumer fora.

The National Commission had found that the auction was on an “as is where is” basis, the pending litigation had been disclosed, and operative interim orders prevented the Bank from securing possession.

The Court therefore held that granting interest by mandamus would effectively compensate the petitioner for an alleged deficiency already negatived by the National Commission.

In the absence of an independent legal or contractual entitlement to interest, the petitioner had not shown the enforceable right required for mandamus.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.