Judgment:
Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner in the instant writ of mandamus has sought the following relief-
(a) declare that in view of the various Sugar Control Orders promulgated by the Central Legislation or the State Legislation pursuant to the Act of 1955 the Act of 1961 protanto gets excluded so far as the transaction of purchase and sale of sugar cane in the market area is concerned and consequently, the Act of 1961 is not applicable and no market fee can be demanded by the respondent No. 1 from the petitioner.
(b) declare that the respondent No. 1 has no authority and/or jurisdiction to demand, levy and collect any market fee from the petitioner on the sale of sugar.
(c) to restrain the respondent No. 1 from demanding, levying and collecting any market fee from the petitioner.
(d) to direct the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 142 lacs which it has collected illegally from the petitioner company.
2. It has been averred in the writ petition that the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Kapasan demanded market fee from the petitioner company in the year 1978 and threatened to prosecute the petitioner. Writ Petition No. 48/78 filed by the petitioner was dismissed on March 24, 1982. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 509/82 preferred against the said order was also dismissed on July 2, 1991. Since refusal to pay the market fee was not considered as malafide, prosecution against the petitioner was quashed. However, the levy was held to be valid. The petitioner thereafter continued to pay the market fee but this mistake has been discovered on reading the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in News Paper and further reported in Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1), decided on August 10, 1999, therefore the instant writ petition was filed with the prayer indicated hereinabove.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record.
4. A writ of mandamus is controlled by equitable principles. It is of very ancient origin, dating back to the time of Edward II. The term 'mandamus' seems gradually to have been confined in its application to the judicial writ issued by the King's Bench, which has by steady growth developed into the writs of mandamus. It is a high prerogative writ and is granted to ampliate justice and to preserve a right where there is no specific remedy. The writ of mandamus can not be demanded ex debito justitiae but it is issued only in the discretion of the court. There are four pre-requisites essential to the issue of the writ of mandamus:
(i) whether the petitioner has a clear and specific legal right to the relief demanded by him;
(ii) whether there is a duty imposed by law on the respondent;
(iii) whether such duty is of an imperative ministerial character involving no judgment or discretion on the part of the respondent;
(iv) whether the petitioner has any remedy; other than by way of mandamus for the enforcement of the right which has been denied to him.
5. A writ of mandamus is not granted for the mere asking of it. The hypothesis and the basic requirements for the issue of such a writ are that a public body is refusing to do its public duty or it is acting in excess of its authority or openly violating the principles of natural justice. Before issuing the writ of mandamus, demand for justice from proper authority and its refusal is necessary. The requirement that there must be a previous demand and denial of the right sought to be enforced by a petition of mandamus is not merely a technical point. It is a point of substance which must be taken into consideration by the court when it issues a writ of mandamus. For issue of mandamus a demand for justice and its refusal is a condition precedent. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. etc. v. Union of India (2), indicated that as a general rule the writ will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so 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 such demand was met by a refusal.
6. A petition for a writ of mandamus must be supported by an affidavit sworn by the petitioner, stating his right in the matter in question, his demand of justice and the denial thereof. The writ of mandamus is not granted on the slippery base of facts.
7. Undeniably the petitioner without a previous demand of justice and denial of the right, has approached this court seeking issuance of writ of mandamus. As already noticed, for issue of mandamus, a demand for justice-and its refusal is a condition precedent and unless this condition is fulfilled no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
8. For the reasons aforementioned the writ petition stands dismissed withoutany order as to costs.