भारत के न्यायालयों द्वारा जारी रिटों के सन्दर्भ में, निम्नलिखित कथनों पर विचार कीजिए :
- 1.किसी प्राइवेट संगठन के विरुद्ध, जब तक कि उसको कोई सार्वजनिक कार्य नहीं सौंपा गया हो, परमादेश (मैंडेमस) नहीं होगा ।
- 2.किसी कंपनी के विरुद्ध, भले ही वह कोई सरकारी कंपनी हो, परमादेश (मैंडेमस) नहीं होगा ।
- 3.कोई भी लोक-प्रवण व्यक्ति (पब्लिक माइंडेड परसन) अधिकार-पृच्छा (क्वो वारंटो) रिट प्राप्त करने हेतु न्यायालय में समावेदन करने के लिए याची (पिटीशनर) हो सकता है ।
उपर्युक्त कथनों में कौन-से सही हैं ?
Read this question in English
With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements:
1. Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty.
2. Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.
3. Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only · (b) 2 and 3 only · (c) 1 and 3 only · (d) 1, 2 and 3
उत्तर और व्याख्या · explanation in English
Answer: (d) 1, 2 और 3
UPSC's official answer: (d) · the answer UPSC accepted, and the one that counts in the exam
Also defensible: (c)
- Statements 1 and 3 are settled law: mandamus enforces a public or statutory duty, and quo warranto may be sought by any member of the public. The dispute is statement 2.
- UPSC's (d) follows Praga Tools (1969), where the Supreme Court refused mandamus against a company 88 per cent owned by the Union and Andhra Pradesh governments, because 'the company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed on it'. Government ownership alone does not attract the writ.
- But the same judgment adds that 'a mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a statute for the purposes of fulfilling public responsibilities', and Article 226 lets a High Court issue writs 'to any person or authority'. A government company that carries a public duty is therefore not immune, so statement 2, written without any exception, is too absolute.
- Read as the general rule it is correct, giving (d); read as an absolute statement it is wrong, giving (c).
UPSC's key is (d), following Praga Tools: a company does not become subject to mandamus merely because the government holds its shares. In the exam, read statement 2 as that general rule and keep the public-duty exception in statement 1, which gives (d).
- Supreme Court of India, Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual (1969): no mandamus against a non-statutory company ↗“In the present case the company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed on it by a statute”
- Supreme Court of India, Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual (1969): when mandamus does lie against a company ↗“A mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a statute for the purposes of fulfilling public responsibilities.”
- Constitution of India, Article 226(1) (Legislative Department) ↗“every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs”
This box is Minimalist IAS's analysis, with its sources; it does not change UPSC's answer.
Mandamus commands the performance of a statutory or public duty, so it reaches a private body only when the law entrusts it with a public duty, and not a company registered under the Companies Act merely because the government owns it: in Praga Tools Corporation (1969) the Supreme Court refused mandamus against a company in which the Union and Andhra Pradesh governments held 88 per cent of the shares. Quo warranto tests a person's title to a public office, and any member of the public may seek it.
- ✓ 1. Mandamus is a command to do a thing that is in the nature of a public duty. The Supreme Court in Praga Tools said it can issue to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings, so a private body is reached only when a statute entrusts it with a public duty.
- ✓ 2. In Praga Tools the company was a government company in substance (56 per cent Union and 32 per cent Andhra Pradesh shareholding), yet the Court held that, being a non-statutory body incorporated under the Companies Act, it bore no statutory or public duty enforceable by mandamus. Government ownership alone does not expose a company to the writ.
- ✓ 3. Quo warranto asks by what authority a person holds a public office. Because the aim is to stop usurpation of public office, the petitioner need not be personally affected — any public-minded person may apply.
Remember · Mandamus: enforces a statutory or public duty; not against a private body without one, nor against a company merely because the government owns it (Praga Tools, 1969). Quo warranto: challenges title to a public office; any public-minded person can file.
📘 Read it in NCERT: Class 11 Indian Constitution at Work, Ch 2 (practise this chapter) · Class 11 Indian Constitution at Work, Ch 2 (practise this chapter)
Sources
- NCERT Class 11 · Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 2 “Mandamus: This writ is issued when the court finds that a particular office holder is not doing legal duty and thereby is infringing on the right of an individual.”
- Supreme Court of India, Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual (1969), headnote ↗ “An order of mandamus is, in form, a command directed to a person, corporation or an inferior tribunal requiring him or them to do a particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. … In the present case the company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed on it by a statute”
- NCERT Class 11 · Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 2 “Quo Warranto: If the court finds that a person is holding office but is not entitled to hold that office, it issues the writ of quo warranto”
- Delhi High Court judgment (W.P.(C) 9382/2021, 6 June 2025), quoting the Supreme Court on quo warranto ↗ “a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto and he stands in the position of a relater. He need not have any special interest or personal interest.”
- Praga Tools Corporation v. C. A. Imanual (Supreme Court, 19 February 1969), 1969 AIR 1306, headnote on shareholding; Indian Kanoon copy, as main.sci.gov.in refuses automated fetches ↗ · reference work “At the material time 56% of its shares were held by the Union Government, 32% by the Andhra Pradesh Government and 12% by private individuals. … The company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed on it by a statute in respect of which enforcement could be sought by means of a mandamus … A mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a statute for the purposes of fulfilling public responsibilities.”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2022, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify). ·