"Not A Perfect World", Can't Enforce State's Statutory Duties Not Having Corresponding Enforceable Legal Right: Gauhati HC

"It should also be noted that this is not a perfect world. Many things which the State and its instrumentalities are expected to perform as a legal duty and have to in terms of statutes are not being done. If persons are allowed to file writ petitions, praying for a writ of mandamus in respect of alleged breach of legal statutory duties, without having any corresponding enforceable legal right on the part of the applicant, the Courts would be a chock-a-block with cases, having nothing to do with the applicants. The same could/would lead to busybodies filing a deluge of writ petitions, which would not be in consonance with the judgments of the Apex Court..."

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the Superintendent of Police in Assam's Karbi Anglong district, seeking disciplinary as well as criminal action against the then SP in the Assam Police (CID) (respondent) for giving false evidence to obtain a Schedule Tribe (Plains) certificate in favour of his daughter.

The genesis of the case is in a FIR lodged by the respondent, alleging that the Petitioner had outraged the modesty of her daughter.

The petitioner submitted that the respondent had fraudulently obtained the ST community certificate in favour of her daughter with an intention to implicate the Petitioner under stringent provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He produced several documents to show that respondent's daughter was previously categorized under the 'General category' and pointed that the tribe certificate was eventually nullified by the Scrutiny Committee.

It was the case of the Petitioner that though none of his rights have been violated, however, a writ of mandamus can be issued for initiation of disciplinary and criminal action against the respondent for her fraudulent acts.

The respondent on the other hand claimed that since no legal right of the petitioner has been violated, as such, he cannot maintain the present writ petition. "No prejudice was caused to the petitioner on the basis of the ST (P) certificate issued to the daughter of the respondent," her counsel submitted.

The Court agreed with the respondent that in order that a mandamus may be issued to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute.

However, in the present case, the Court observed that the petitioner was unable to show that his legal right had been jeopardised because of respondent's daughter being issued an ST (P) certificate. "The provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were never incorporated in the Police case and the rigors of the same never applied or felt by the petitioner."

The Court also found that the only reason for the Scrutiny Committee to nullify the ST community certificate was that education and amenities were available to respondent's daughter. However, this finding in no way suggested that the respondent had played a fraud or submitted false evidence or had fabricated documents.

"Though the counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince this Court that the attempt by the respondent No. 6 to influence the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) to issue a caste certificate, by considering the judgments of the Apex Court and the High Court was a mischief played by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that no criminal offence has been committed, in the respondent No. 6 trying to take the help of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, if the respondent No. 6 is of the view that those decisions support her case," Court added.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Gaurav Upadhyay v State of Assam and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 63