Public interest standing and limits on mandamus where audit requests and policy guidelines depend on statutory discretion.

Public interest standing was recognised where the petitioner alleged public injury and breach of public duty in relation to a nationalised bank, so the writ was maintainable. Article 226 jurisdiction was held to remain available because the banking-related grievance did not oust constitutional writ power. However, mandamus could not be issued to compel the third respondent to seek the Comptroller and Auditor-General's opinion or to disclose the inspection report, since the Constitution and the 1971 Act left audit to the prescribed statutory and executive satisfaction, with no corresponding legal duty cast on the respondent. The Court also declined to frame corrective policy guidelines, treating that as a legislative or executive function.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner had locus standi to maintain the writ petition as a public interest action; (ii) whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the petition; and (iii) whether mandamus could be issued to compel the third respondent to seek the Comptroller and Auditor-General's opinion and to direct production of the inspection report and related materials.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner had locus standi to maintain the writ petition as a public interest action.

Analysis: The petition alleged serious loss to a nationalised bank and asserted injury to public interest rather than a private grievance. The judgment applied the liberalised standing principles governing public interest litigation and held that a citizen having sufficient interest may invoke writ jurisdiction where public duty is said to have been breached and public injury is alleged.

Conclusion: The petitioner had locus standi, and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the petition.

Analysis: Article 226 confers wide writ jurisdiction and is not confined to enforcement of fundamental rights. The Court held that the nature of the grievance did not oust constitutional jurisdiction merely because the allegations concerned banking administration and public oversight.

Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iii): whether mandamus could be issued to compel the third respondent to seek the Comptroller and Auditor-General's opinion and to direct production of the inspection report and related materials.

Analysis: The Court examined Articles 148 and 149 of the Constitution of India and Sections 19 and 20 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971, and held that audit of the bank's accounts could be entrusted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General only through the constitutionally and statutorily prescribed satisfaction and request of the competent authority. The bank was not a department of the Union, and no legal duty was cast on the third respondent to seek the Comptroller and Auditor-General's opinion. The Court also held that the second and third respondents had no control over the employee whose report was sought, and that the reliefs sought would trench upon matters of executive and statutory discretion. The Court further declined to formulate general corrective guidelines, treating that as a legislative or executive function, and noted the secrecy concerns surrounding bank records.

Conclusion: No mandamus could be issued for the requested audit opinion, disclosure of the report, or formulation of the requested guidelines; this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not sustainable on the substantive reliefs sought, and the Court declined to grant any of the prayed-for directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Public interest standing is available where sufficient public interest is shown, but mandamus cannot compel a public authority to exercise a power that the statute entrusts to executive satisfaction and discretion, nor can the Court assume a legislative role by framing policy guidelines.

---