New Delhi, April 2, 2022: While dealing with a Writ Petition seeking issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in the absence of any representation made by the petitioner before the concerned authority for redressal of its grievance, a Writ in the nature of Mandamus is not maintainable.
The Bench of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri was considering a challenge in form of a writ petition against the communication issued by the third respondent to the fourth respondent (Sub Registrar, Co-operative Society, Gurugram) issuing directions not to process any request of sale and purchase in respect of the petitioner-Society without obtaining ‘No dues certificate’ from HSVP on account of the outstanding amount of Rs. 5,20,71,393.60.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that according to the latest Allottee Account Statement, there was a credit of Rs.26,85,475.00 and therefore, the said communication was not justified.
The Court opined that, admittedly, the account statement was issued after the impugned communication and that nothing was placed on record to show that the petitioner-Society represented the second respondent the fact that it credited the balance.
In such circumstances, the Court opined that it was always open to the petitioner-Society to approach the second and the third respondents for redressal of its grievance by filing an appropriate representation to show that any claim made by the said respondent was not justified.
In this light, the Court adjudged that it is settled principle that in the absence of any representation by the Writ Petitioner, a writ of mandamus is not maintainable.
Thus, on the submission of the petitioner’s counsel to this effect, the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the respondents for redressal of its grievance by filing an appropriate representation and by raising all the issues which need redressal.
The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner.