High Court Cannot Issue Mandamus to Consider Representations Without Establishing Inherent Legal Rights under Article 226

The appellants, former employees or associates of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), filed Writ Petitions seeking a Writ of Mandamus.

Their primary grievance was that a 2014 proposal for amending the Food Corporation of India Act, based on certain official internal communications and their own representations, had not been fructified.

They sought directions to compel the authorities to act upon these internal notes and representations.

The Writ Court dismissed the petitions on 20.07.2023, ruling that a Mandamus cannot be issued to direct respondents to process internal communications for legislative amendments.

The appellants challenged this dismissal via Intra-Court Appeals.

1. Whether the High Court, in the exercise of judicial review under Article 226, can issue directions to dispose of representations in a routine manner without the petitioner establishing a legal right or its infringement.

2. Whether a Writ of Mandamus can be issued to compel the Government to initiate or process internal communications for the purpose of amending an Act.

The Court applied the principles of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that a petitioner must establish a clear legal right or the infringement of such a right to maintain a writ petition.

It relied on the precedent set by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. and others (2024 INSC 150), which held that Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for disposals or interfering in administrative/judicial prioritization except in exceptional circumstances.

The Court reasoned that issuing "blind" directions to consider representations without examining the underlying legal rights is improper, as it may lead to the consideration of claims on extraneous grounds or allow the High Court’s order to be misused to create administrative files for indirect goals.

Regarding the specific relief sought, the Court observed that the appellants’ grievance centered on legislative amendments to the Food Corporation of India Act.

The Court held that internal communications and notes regarding potential legislative changes do not create an enforceable legal right.

Since the power to amend an Act is a legislative/policy matter, the judiciary cannot issue a Mandamus to compel the executive to process internal notes for that purpose.

The Court found the writ petitions to be "misconceived" because the grievance addressed did not fall within the realm of judicial review.

Furthermore, it held that no Writ of Mandamus lies to compel the government to act on internal communications for amending a statute.

The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeals, confirming the order of the Writ Court and closing all connected miscellaneous petitions with no costs awarded.