No Mandamus to Compel Portal Complaint Action Where Statutory Criminal Remedy Exists, Rules Allahabad HC

A Division Bench dismissed a writ petition seeking directions on Chief Minister's Portal complaints about stolen cheques, holding that the petitioner had not established any legal right enforceable by mandamus.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 10 July 2026, refusing to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Electricity Department at Prayagraj to act on complaints lodged by the petitioner through the Chief Minister's Portal. The Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla, with the judgment delivered by Justice Indrajeet Shukla, held that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any clear and enforceable legal right, the foundational prerequisite for the issuance of mandamus. The bench also found that an efficacious statutory remedy exists under Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), making the writ route untenable.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioner, Chandan Kumar, through his firm M/S Ananta Enterprises, claimed that cheques bearing numbers 115323, 115324, and 115325 were lost. Apprehending misuse, he lodged a complaint at Police Station Colonelganj, Prayagraj on 5 November 2025. His fears materialised when, on 30 December 2025, he received a bank SMS informing him that cheque number 115323, for Rs. 80,000, had been processed for encashment in favour of the Executive Engineer, Electric Store Division, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam, Myohall, Prayagraj — identified in the proceedings as respondent no. 4.

The petitioner approached respondent no. 4 the very next day, 31 December 2025, and reported that the cheque had been stolen and fraudulently used to clear someone else's electricity dues. He was told the cheque had been deposited by an entity called “Fusion Wellness Centre” bearing consumer ID number 2711948715, belonging to one Mrs. Urmila Gupta, arrayed as respondent no. 5.

Receiving no action from the Electricity Department, the petitioner filed complaints on the Chief Minister's Portal: Complaint No. 40017526002646 dated 12 January 2026, and Complaint No. 40017526008467 dated 7 February 2026. When those complaints also went unaddressed, he approached the High Court seeking a direction to respondent no. 4 to decide those complaints within a stipulated time.

The petitioner additionally alleged that Electricity Department officials were acting in collusion with respondent no. 5, which he said explained the inaction. He characterised the fraudulent use of the cheques as constituting offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to the erstwhile Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

The Legal Issue: When Does Mandamus Lie?

When the bench asked the petitioner's counsel to identify the statutory or legal right that had been infringed, and to explain in what manner the respondents were legally obliged to redress the complaint on the administrative side, counsel was unable to do so.

The bench set out the five conditions that must be satisfied before a court may issue a writ of mandamus: the applicant must have a legal right; the opposite party must have a corresponding legal duty; the application must be made in good faith; no other alternative remedy must be available; and the opposite party must have refused relief or remained inactive despite demand.

The bench drew on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Hardik Pravin Kumar Shah v. Union of India, 2021 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 3585, authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala (as he then was), which described mandamus as a remedy maintainable only when there is no other adequate remedy, intended to enforce only clear legal rights, and issuable only as a last resort where without it there would be a failure of justice.

The bench also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150, which affirms that mandamus is not a writ of right and its grant depends on establishing a clear legal right in the applicant or a statutory duty in the respondent, with no alternative remedy available.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench drew on a line of Supreme Court authority to arrive at ten governing principles on the issuance of mandamus. The petitioner must establish a clear and enforceable legal right. There must be a corresponding public duty cast upon the respondent by the Constitution, a statute, statutory rules, or the common law. The duty must be of a public character. Mandamus is not intended to supplant ordinary civil remedies, nor does it deprive the respondent of lawful defences available in those proceedings.

The bench also relied on Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain, (2008) 2 SCC 280, which holds that the chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers within their jurisdictions. It added that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the authority has exercised that discretion reasonably.

From State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmi Kutty, (1986) 4 SCC 632, the bench reaffirmed that the existence of a right is the very foundation of the jurisdiction of a court to issue mandamus, and that the legal right to enforce performance of a duty must vest in the applicant himself.

Two recent Supreme Court decisions were also cited. In R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 425, the Supreme Court reiterated that the existence of an enforceable legal right in the petitioner and a corresponding public or statutory duty in the respondent are the sine qua non for mandamus. In Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 1337, the Supreme Court emphasised that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and ordinarily should not be exercised where an efficacious statutory remedy is available, except in circumstances recognised by law.

Applying these principles, the bench found that on close scrutiny of the facts the petitioner had utterly failed to demonstrate any indefeasible right or a corresponding legal obligation fastened upon the authorities by law in the nature of a public duty. The substance of the portal complaints, the bench observed, was really a grievance about non-registration of a criminal case.

For that very grievance, the bench pointed to the statutory scheme under Chapter XIII of the BNSS, 2023, which deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. That chapter includes a default remedy for situations where an officer in charge of a police station refuses to record information. The petitioner could not explain why that scheme was not an efficacious remedy.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition WRIT-C No. 20880 of 2026. No order as to costs was made. The bench, however, granted the petitioner liberty to avail his statutory remedies, specifically those available under Chapter XIII of the BNSS, 2023, if he chose to do so.