Mandamus under Article 226 cannot enforce private contractual rights when an adequate civil remedy is available.

Mandamus under Article 226 lies only to enforce a public or statutory duty, and it cannot be used to enforce private contractual rights arising from a company's memorandum and articles. Where the dispute concerns alleged invalidity of a resolution affecting managing agency rights, the proper remedy is a civil suit for declaration and consequential relief, including injunction or damages, if available. The existence of an adequate ordinary civil remedy weighs against writ relief, and Article 226 does not enlarge mandamus beyond its settled limits. Claims based on fundamental rights or alleged want of jurisdiction were rejected on the stated facts because the controversy remained a private rights dispute against a private company.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could issue to restrain a private trading company from acting on a resolution affecting the petitioners' managing agency rights, and whether the existence of an ordinary civil remedy barred relief under Article 226.

Analysis: The petitioners' claim arose from contractual rights embodied in the company's memorandum and articles, not from any statutory duty cast on the company in its public character. The relief sought would in substance declare the impugned resolution invalid and enforce private contractual rights. The principles governing mandamus require a legal duty of a public nature, and the Court held that Article 226 does not enlarge that remedy so as to dispense with settled limits. The Court further held that a suit for declaration and consequential relief, including injunction or damages, furnished an adequate remedy, and that the petitioners could not convert an otherwise unavailable contractual remedy into one enforceable by mandamus. The alleged exceptions based on fundamental rights and want of jurisdiction were rejected, as the dispute involved private rights against a private company and no jurisdictional defect was shown on the face of the record.

Conclusion: No writ of mandamus was maintainable, and the petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned resolution was not interdicted in writ jurisdiction, and the petitioners were left to pursue their ordinary civil remedies, if available.

Ratio Decidendi: Mandamus under Article 226 lies only to enforce a public or statutory duty and not to enforce private contractual rights where an adequate civil remedy exists.

---