Writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce purely contractual obligations against a private, non-statutory body.

The Petitioner was engaged as a contractual employee by Respondent No. 2 (CMS Computers Limited) via an appointment letter dated 13.12.2021 for an initial period of two years

Following several extensions, the contract was scheduled to expire on 31.12.2024

On 19.11.2024, Respondent No. 2 issued an impugned notice directing the Petitioner to stop reporting to the office of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (Respondent No. 8) effective 01.11.2024

The notice clarified that the Petitioner's salary would be paid until the completion of the project on 31.12.2024, which the Petitioner duly received

The Petitioner filed the present writ seeking to quash the notice and a mandamus to compel the Respondents to continue her employment

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to enforce purely contractual obligations against a private, non-statutory body

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a direction for the continuation of her engagement after the expiry of the agreed contractual period

The Court primarily relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Shamli and Ors. vs. Lakshmi Narain and Ors. (AIR 1976 SC 888), which held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce purely contractual obligations against a non-statutory body

The Court further applied the principle that a private company does not fall within the ambit of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India unless it performs public functions or is a statutory body, and thus is not generally amenable to writ jurisdiction for private law remedies like damages

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s contractual term had already expired on 31.12.2024, and consequently, Respondent No. 2 was under no persisting contractual obligation to employ her

The Court reasoned that since Respondent No. 2 is a private company and the grievance arises from a contract of personal service, the matter falls strictly within the realm of private law

The Court noted that even if the Petitioner’s contention regarding a later expiry date (05.02.2025) were accepted, that period had also lapsed by the date of the decision

The Court concluded that it lacks the jurisdiction to issue a mandamus to enforce a contract against a non-statutory entity or to extend a contract beyond its agreed duration

The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to file a civil suit to seek damages if she is so entitled under the law