Mandamus cannot compel transfer of market premises without a statutory duty or enforceable legal right.

No enforceable right arose for allottees to demand transfer of shops, godowns and sheds on a hire-purchase basis under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, because the statutory scheme vested property management in the Mandi Samiti and Board without imposing any duty to sell or transfer market premises. The proviso to Section 12 required prior Board approval for transfer of immovable property, and Section 26-L did not authorise compulsion to transfer. A director's letter could not create a legal entitlement absent a competent Board decision, so mandamus was unavailable. Judicial review of such policy matters was limited to illegality, arbitrariness, discrimination or mala fides, none being shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners had a legal right to insist that the shops, godowns and sheds allotted to them be transferred on hire-purchase basis and whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel such transfer.

Analysis: The statutory framework under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 vested the Mandi Samiti and the Board with authority over property management, but did not confer any enforceable right on allottees to demand transfer on hire-purchase basis. The proviso to Section 12 restricted transfer of immovable property without the Board's prior approval, and the powers of the Board under Section 26-L did not include any compulsion to sell or transfer market premises to traders. The alleged letter of the Director could not create a legal entitlement because policy decisions of this nature had to be taken by the competent Board, and no material showed that such a decision was ever made. In the absence of any statutory duty or legally enforceable promise, mandamus could not lie. The Court also reiterated that matters of policy are open to judicial review only on narrow grounds such as illegality, arbitrariness, discrimination or mala fides, none of which was established.

Conclusion: The petitioners had no enforceable legal right to demand transfer of the premises on hire-purchase basis, and no writ of mandamus could be issued in their favour.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal to transfer the market premises failed on merits, and the dismissal of the proceedings was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel transfer of property unless a statutory duty and corresponding legal right are shown, and a court will not interfere with a competent authority's policy decision absent illegality, arbitrariness, discrimination or mala fides.

---