Mandamus cannot issue absent a specific demand and refusal to perform the duty.

The petitioner, a furniture-manufacturing proprietorship, obtained a loan of ₹7,00,000 and deposited ₹50,000 as margin money. After the business suffered losses, the loan account was classified as an NPA.

The petitioner said the loan account was settled for ₹2,50,000, paid on 31 March 2018, and that a separate cash-credit account was settled before the National Lok Adalat for ₹25,000, paid in September 2021.

He sought a no-dues certificate, but the record contained no document establishing the Lok Adalat settlement of the cash-credit account, and he had not shown that he first requested the Bank to issue the certificate.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ directing the Bank to issue a no-dues certificate when he had not first made a documented demand to the Bank and obtained a refusal.

2. Whether the materials on record sufficiently established settlement of both loan accounts to support the requested direction.

Under Article 226, a writ in the nature of mandamus ordinarily will not issue unless the respondent has been required to perform the duty sought to be enforced and has refused to do so.

Relying on Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630, the Court applied the principle that a distinct demand and refusal must generally be shown before mandamus is granted.

The Court also considered whether the documents on record established settlement of the accounts; it noted the absence of documentary proof that the National Lok Adalat had settled the cash-credit account for ₹25,000.

The petitioner had not demonstrated that he had approached the Bank for a no-dues certificate or that the Bank had refused such a request. Under the principle in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate, this absence of demand and refusal did not support issuing mandamus.

Further, although a receipt for ₹25,000 was produced, the petitioner had not placed the cash-credit account statement or a document evidencing the alleged Lok Adalat settlement before the Court.

The Court therefore directed the petitioner to submit the relevant documents to the Bank rather than determine his entitlement to the certificate itself.

It directed the petitioner to submit a representation with relevant documents to the Bank within one month of receiving or producing a copy of the order; the Bank was directed to consider the documents and pass an appropriate order within three months thereafter.