Mandamus was refused after substantial compliance and a ten-year delay in approaching the Court.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the second respondent to act in accordance with the first respondent’s proceedings dated 26 December 2013.

In response to the Court’s request for instructions, the respondents stated that an inquiry had been conducted under Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act, surcharge proceedings had been initiated under Section 84, the petitioner had filed a CMA against those proceedings, and disciplinary proceedings had also been initiated against the relevant employees.

The petitioner filed the writ petition approximately ten years after the 2013 proceedings.

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the second respondent to take action pursuant to the proceedings dated 26 December 2013.

Whether the steps taken by the respondents constituted substantial compliance with those proceedings, having regard to the petitioner’s delay in approaching the Court.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek mandamus.

The Court referred to the inquiry under Section 81 and surcharge proceedings under Section 84 of the Co-operative Societies Act as steps taken pursuant to the 2013 proceedings.

The Court accepted the respondents’ submission that the Section 81 inquiry, Section 84 surcharge proceedings, and related disciplinary proceedings had been initiated pursuant to the 2013 proceedings.

It therefore found substantial compliance with the 2013 letter. The Court also noted that the petitioner had approached it after ten years and, in those circumstances, found no basis to grant mandamus.

The writ petition was closed with no order as to costs.