Administrative lawMandamusSupreme Court of India

Umakant Saran v State of Bihar

AIR 1973 Supreme Court 96419731 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Petitioner applied for a government appointment. The authority refused to consider the application at all (refused to exercise discretion) Mandamus was sought to compel the authority to consider the application.
Issue
Whether mandamus lies to compel an authority to exercise a discretion it has wrongly refused to exercise?
Held
Mandamus lies to compel an authority to exercise a discretion it has wrongly refused to exercise. The writ directs consideration, not a favourable outcome.
Principle
Mandamus lies to compel a public authority to exercise a statutory discretion it has refused to exercise; it cannot direct the outcome of that discretion.
Cite this

Facts

  • Petitioner applied for a government appointment
  • The authority refused to consider the application at all (refused to exercise discretion)
  • Mandamus was sought to compel the authority to consider the application

Issue

  1. Whether mandamus lies to compel an authority to exercise a discretion it has wrongly refused to exercise?

Held

  • Mandamus lies to compel an authority to exercise a discretion it has wrongly refused to exercise. The writ directs consideration, not a favourable outcome.

Ratio decidendi

Mandamus directs the exercise of discretion, not its outcome. Refusal to exercise discretion at all is amenable to mandamus. The result of a properly exercised discretion is beyond the writ.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Core distinction for ADM-5.2: mandamus commands consideration, not a favourable decision.

Cite this

Citation

Umakant Saran v State of Bihar AIR 1973 Supreme Court 964

Reported: AIR 1973 Supreme Court 964. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.