Judgment:
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to refer the financial irregularities committed by the 3rd respondent during the period from 30-6-2001 to 22-12-2001 as Managing Director of the Respondent No. 2 Corporation, for audit to the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India under Section 31(8) of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962.
2. The Writ Petition, as framed, is not maintainable in law. The Supreme Court in S.I. Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, : [1975]1SCR956 while dealing with an identical matter, has observed as follows:
'As a general rule, the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the Mandamus desires to enforce, and that demand was met by a refusal Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol.13, P.106- Followed.
3. In yet another similar case reported in Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury v. State of West Bengal, : [1973]1SCR718 the Honourable Supreme Court ruled:
'A demand for justice and its refusal must precede the filing of a petition asking for direction or Writ of Mandamus.'
4. A Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Malabar Cements Ltd. v. Mukundan, 1999 (2) KLT 282 presided over by one of us (AR. Lakshmanan, J., as he then was), while dealing with an identical case held:
'It is settled law that no decision adverse to any party shall be taken without giving the affected party an effective opportunity of meeting the allegations against him before such decision is taken. This principle requires that every person whose right is affected must have a reasonable notice of the case he has to meet. He must be furnished with the information upon which the action (in the instant case Ext. P-1) is based. He must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard in his defence and to meet the case against him. In the instant case, such a reasonable opportunity to be heard was not given to the appellant by this Court. The case was decided in the absence of the appellant and a vigilance enquiry was ordered on that basis. It is settled by a catena of decisions of this Court and the Apex Court that a decision taken on the basis of information gathered on the back of the party affected, without giving him an opportunity to rebut such information or material, is opposed to the principles of natural justice. This principle is attracted in the instant case since a proper opportunity was not given to the appellant to meet the case against it by filing a counter-affidavit and producing evidence. We are of the opinion that when a serious allegation is made before this Court, this Court is bound to issue notice to the person or persons against whom such allegation is made, affording an opportunity of hearing.'
5. Admittedly, the present Writ Petition was not preceded by a demand, which was met by a refusal. Therefore, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court, we dismiss the present Writ Petition as not maintainable at this stage.