Mandamus under Article 226 is unavailable for private money-recovery disputes lacking any public law element.

A writ of mandamus under Article 226 will not lie where the real dispute is a private contractual claim for recovery of money and no public law element is shown. The Calcutta HC noted that the grievance over fresh lease deeds was in substance a commercial loan recovery dispute involving companies in liquidation, and that the creditors had already lodged their claims before the Official Liquidator. In that setting, the dues of the liquidation estate had to be pursued in the winding-up forum, and writ jurisdiction was not appropriate to declare registered lease deeds non est on the facts presented. The challenge to the fresh leases therefore failed, while other lawful remedies remained open.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be issued to stop execution and registration of fresh lease deeds where the dispute was essentially over recovery of money advanced to the erstwhile lessees and claims had already been lodged before the Official Liquidator.

Analysis: The writ petition rested on the asserted non-compliance with government notifications governing fresh lease, but the underlying grievance was found to be the recovery of a commercial loan from companies already in liquidation. The Court held that the dispute lacked a public law element and was rooted in a contractual / private financial transaction. Since the creditors had already filed their claims before the Official Liquidator after the winding up order, the dues of the companies in liquidation were a matter for that forum. The Court also noted that, in writ jurisdiction, there was little scope to declare already registered lease deeds non est on the facts presented.

Conclusion: A writ of mandamus was not maintainable to stall the lease transactions in aid of a private money-recovery claim, and the challenge to the fresh leases failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed for want of merit, while leaving the petitioners free to pursue any other remedy available in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 226 relief by mandamus is unavailable where the real dispute is a private contractual claim for recovery of money and no public law element is shown.

---