Mandamus cannot compel payment of disputed vehicle dues absent proof of official use.

The petitioner claimed Rs. 1,08,500 as unpaid hire charges for his vehicle, allegedly used by the District Welfare Officer, Saharsa, from September 2015 to March 2016 under an agreement providing monthly rent of Rs. 15,500.

The District Public Grievance Redressal Authority directed payment of the outstanding amount within 15 days, but payment was not made.

The respondents disputed use of the vehicle after 23 August 2015, noted that the petitioner had not produced a log book, and stated that, after adjustment of an advance, Rs. 2,901 was payable and a cheque for that amount had been issued.

The petitioner sought a writ directing payment of the claimed sum and compliance with the grievance authority’s order.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus for payment of Rs. 1,08,500 when the respondents disputed use of his vehicle during the claimed period and he produced no log book or other reliable evidence of such use.

2. Whether the order of the Public Grievance Redressal Authority, by itself, supplied a sufficient basis for mandamus to recover the disputed amount.

No statute or precedent was expressly cited. The Court applied the principle that mandamus for payment requires material establishing the claimed entitlement and the respondent’s corresponding liability; where the underlying claim is factually disputed and unsupported by satisfactory evidence, an administrative grievance order alone is insufficient to compel payment by writ.

The respondents specifically asserted that the vehicle’s official use ended on 23 August 2015 and that another vehicle was engaged thereafter. The petitioner did not produce a log book or other reliable material showing use of his vehicle from September 2015 to March 2016. In those circumstances, the Court found no adequate evidentiary basis to establish the claimed liability.

It further held that the grievance authority’s order, without such supporting material, was not by itself sufficient to justify mandamus; the respondents’ assertion that Rs. 2,901 had been found payable and a cheque issued was also noted.

Any interlocutory applications were disposed of.