- (1.) The only relief sought in the writ petition is that the petitioner's representations dated 12.7.2004, 31.8.2009 and 22.1.2013 be directed to be decided.
(2.) Despite repeated query, learned counsel for the petitioner could not at all show as to under which provision such representation is entertainable so as to cast an obligation upon the respondent no.1 to decide the same failing which the petitioner who is entitled for issuance of writ of mandamus. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus would lie only if the petitioner is enforcing a legal right and the respondents are under a statutory obligation to do or not to do something but have failed to do so.
(3.) In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and another, 2008 2 SCC 280 Apex Court after referring to its earlier judgments in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh, 1977 4 SCC 145; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani Vs. N.M. Shah, 1966 AIR(SC) 334 Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs. State of Bihar, 1973 1 SCC 485 and observed as under: "There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation.";