Anadi Mukta Sadguru Trust v V. R. Rudani (1989)

It is the leading case on the reach of mandamus in India, and the best answer to any problem about a body that is not obviously governmental. It also contains the clearest statement of why Article 226 is wider than the English prerogative writs, and why the word authority there does not bear its Article 12 meaning.

Teachers of a science college run by a trust and affiliated to a university sued for terminal benefits and arrears of salary when the college was closed. The trust said no writ lay against it.

In Vaish Degree College the Court had refused to treat a college managed by a registered co-operative society as a statutory body: "the management of the college was not a statutory body since not created by or under a statute", and "an institution which adopts certain statutory provisions will not become a statutory body and the dismissed employee cannot enforce a contract of personal service against a non-statutory body." Deepak Kumar Biswas followed it, granting money rather than reinstatement, "because of the common law principle that a service contract cannot be specifically enforced." But here "There is no plea for specific performance of contractual service", only a claim for "the terminal benefits and arrears of salary payable to them."

Mandamus lay, and the teachers' claim succeeded.

The two exceptions to mandamus, stated exactly. "If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the college is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to mandamus. But once these are absent and when the party has no other equally convenient remedy, mandamus cannot be denied."

Why an aided college is not purely private. "the appellants-trust was managing the affiliated college to which public money is paid as government aid. Public money paid as government aid plays a major role in the control, maintenance and working of educational institutions. The aided institutions like government institutions discharge public function by way of imparting education to students." They are subject to the university's rules and their activities "are closely supervised by the University authorities." Hence "Employment in such institutions, therefore, is not devoid of any public character", and the service conditions of the academic staff have "super-added protection by University decisions creating a legal right-duty relationship between the staff and the management. When there is existence of this relationship, mandamus cannot be refused to the aggrieved party."

Why Article 226 is wider than the English writ. In England "the prerogative writ of mandamus is confined only to public authorities to compel performance of public duty", and a public authority there "means everybody which is created by statute - and whose powers and duties are defined by statute." But "there is no such limitation for our High Courts to issue the writ 'in the nature of mandamus'." Under Article 226 "writs can be issued to "any person or authority"" and "for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights and for any other purpose". This "is a striking departure from the English law."

Subba Rao J. in Dwarkanath v ITO is quoted: the article "is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex-facie confers a wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found." Writs may issue "in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the scope of those writs also is widened by the use of the expression "nature", for the said expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with those in England, but only draws an analogy from them." High Courts "can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs", which "enables the High Court to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country." To equate Article 226 with the English writs "is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with a unitary form of government into a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure."

The meaning of authority in Article 226. "The term "authority" used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32." The words "any person or authority" are "not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied."

Praga Tools Corporation v C. A. Imanual is cited: "It is, however, not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be a public official or an official body." Mandamus may issue "to an official of a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed and also to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings", and "would also lie against a company constituted by a statute for the purpose of fulfilling public responsibilities."

And the duty need not be statutory at all. De Smith, quoted with approval: "To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract."

The Court's conclusion. "The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available 'to reach injustice wherever it is found'. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226."

Mandamus under Article 226 lies against any person or body owing a public duty, however that duty is imposed — by statute, charter, common law, custom or contract — the form of the body being irrelevant and the nature of the duty decisive. It does not lie where the rights are purely private or the body is purely private with no public duty.

• Always give the counterpoint or the answer over-claims: Common Cause v Union of India holds that where the legislature has left it to the Central Government to notify the date on which an Act comes into force, no mandamus can issue to notify. That is de Smith's rule in operation — an authority can be compelled to exercise its discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner.
• On Article 226 generally: use the Dwarkanath passage, and note that the jurisdiction is not subject to the archaic constraints on which prerogative writs were issued in England.