C.N. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Advocate. In this Original Petition be seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to appoint a Commission of Enquiry in exercise of the powers conferred on it by S.3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act to enquire into the allegations, etc. stated in the OP. arid to consider other relevant matters. In the OP. the petitioner has referred to innumerable details. In brief, the matter about which this OP is concerned is an article which appeared in the Illustrated Weekly of India in the issue dated 22-28 September, 1985 at pages 26 and 27 styled "The Public Interest in defence of truth." (Ext. P1) According to the petitioner it is an insinuation to the effect that the 4th respondent, the Chief Minister of Kerala, had a telephone talk with an Honourable Judge of this Court on the eve of the latter admitting a quo-warranto petition against the former Electricity Minister. According to the petitioner, the above .article has invited great publicity and has called for diverse comments or interpretations. It is stated that the petitioner and several members of the public have legitimate right to know the truth in the allegations against the 4th respondent and whether there is any actual obstruction in the administration of justice by the Honourable Judge due to the interference by the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, these are all definite matters of public importance and so it is absolutely necessary to enquire into the correctness of the allegations in order to fix the responsibility of the individuals who might be guilty. The facts and circumstances of the present case are of a compelling nature that the Ist respondent. Union of India has got a duty to exercise the discretionary powers under S.3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act and appoint a commission to steer clear the doubts that have cropped up in the matter.

(2.) I heard the petitioner, Mr. C.N. Radhakrishnan, who appeared in person. Ext. P1 is the article which, according to the petitioner, has sparked diverse comments and necessitates or requires an enquiry under the Commission of Enquiry Act. The main relief sought in the case is the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Ist respondent, Union of India, to appoint a Commission of Enquiry in exercise of the powers vested in it under S.3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act. 'It is well settled that the existence of a right is the foundation for the exercise of jurisdiction of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary one, which should be exercised to enforce only a legal right. The legal right must be ordinarily that of the petitioner, himself. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Gas Company (Prop:) Ltd v. State of West Bengal ( AIR 1962 SC 1044 ) and State of Punjab v. Suraj Parkash Kapur ( AIR 1963 SC 507 ) are clear on this aspect. Ordinarily, before moving this Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus, the petitioner should show that he demanded justice at the hands of the respondents and that he was denied the relief. The refusal may be either express or implied. There is no plea or proof on this score. There may be extra ordinary circumstances, where the demand and refusal will only be an idle formality. The petitioner has no such case here. On this short ground, the prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus, is wholly unsustainable and the Original Petition deserves to be dismissed As observed by Ferris in 'Extraordinary Legal Remedies' at page 222, mandamus is reserved for extraordinary emergencies, being a supplementary means of obtaining substantial justice where there is a clear legal right and no other adequate legal remedy. Again at page 224 Ferris has stated the law thus:

(3.) In the light of the above authorities, it is impossible, to say that the petitioner has a clear and specific right to the relief demanded by him nor is there a duty imposed by law on the 1st respondent I hold that the petitioner has no right to seek, the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to appoint a commission in exercise of the powers under S.3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act It is impossible to say that the petitioner will be a person who is specifically entitled to call for the exercise of power under S.3 of the Act. It is also not possible to state that the petitioner has no other adequate remedy. He could have moved the 1st respondent, if he was so advised. He did not do so for reasons best known to him. This is not one of those cases, where this Court will exercise its extra ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution, where the petitioner himself has no clear right or a strong case entitling him to the relief, prayed for. In this view of the matter, I hold that the O.P. is misconceived. It is unsustainable. It is dismissed in limine.