Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is an Advocate. 1n this Original Petition be seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to appoint a Commission of Enquiry in exercise of the powers conferred on it by S.3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act to enquire into the allegations, etc. stated in the OP. and to consider other relevant matters. In the OP. the petitioner has referred to innumerable details. In brief, the matter about which this OP is concerned is an article which appeared in the Illustrated Weekly of India in the issue dated 22-28 September, 1985 at pages 26 and 27 styled "The Public Interest in defence of truth." (Ext. P1) According to the petitioner it is an insinuation to the effect that the 4th respondent, the Chief Minister of Kerala, had a telephone talk with an Honourable Judge of this Court on the eve of the latter admitting a quo-warranto petition against the former Electricity Minister. According to the petitioner, the above article has invited great publicity and has called for diverse comments or interpretations. It is stated that the petitioner and several members of the public have legitimate right to know the truth in the allegations against the 4th respondent and whether there is any actual obstruction in the administration of justice by the Honourable Judge due to the interference by the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, these are all definite matters of public importance and so it is absolutely necessary to enquire into the correctness of the allegations in order to fix the responsibility of the individuals who might be guilty. The facts and circumstances of the present case are of a compelling nature that the Ist respondent. Union of India has got a duty to exercise the discretionary powers under S.3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act and appoint a commission to steer clear the doubts that have cropped up in the matter. 2. I heard the petitioner, Mr. C.N. Radhakrishnan, who appeared in person. Ext. P1 is the article which, according to the petitioner, has sparked diverse comments and necessitates or requires an enquiry under the Commission of Enquiry Act. 2. I heard the petitioner, Mr. C.N. Radhakrishnan, who appeared in person. Ext. P1 is the article which, according to the petitioner, has sparked diverse comments and necessitates or requires an enquiry under the Commission of Enquiry Act. The main relief sought in the case is the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Ist respondent, Union of India, to appoint a Commission of Enquiry in exercise of the powers vested in it under S.3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act. 'It is well-settled that the existence of a right is the foundation for the exercise of jurisdiction of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary one, which should be exercised to enforce only a legal right. The legal right must be ordinarily that of the petitioner, himself. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Gas CorapUny (Prop:) Ltd v. State of West Bengal (AIR. 1962 SC. 1044) and State of Punjab v. Suraj Parkash Kapur (AIR. 1963 SC. 507) are clear on this aspect. Ordinarily, before moving this Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus, the petitioner should show that he demanded justice at the hands of the respondents and that he was denied the relief. The refusal may be either express or implied. There is no plea or proof on this score. There may be extra-ordinary circumstances, where the demand and refusal will only be an idle formality. The petitioner has no such case here. On this short ground, the prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus, is wholly unsustainable and the Original Petition deserves to be dismissed As observed by Ferris in 'Extraordinary Legal Remedies' at page 222, mandamus is reserved for extraordinary emergencies, being a supplementary means of obtaining substantial justice where there is a clear legal right and no other adequate legal remedy. Again at page 224 Ferris has stated the law thus: "It is well to remember that mandamus will not be issued except in a very strong case, as it is an extraordinary remedy and the judiciary is loathe to interfere with the exercise of official duties unless some specific act or thing which the law requires to be done has been omitted. The writ is only issued when the ministerial duty sought to be coerced is simple and definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved, and imposed by law, the test being not the power of the court to issue it, but the propriety of its issuance in the light of a wise discretion. It is a legal duty, coupled with a pecuniary loss to plaintiff, which cannot be compensated by damages, that is usually necessary to make out a prima facie case founded on substantial right." In Mani Subrat Jain v State of Haryana (AIR, 1977 SC. 276) at page 277 (paragraph 9) the Supreme. Court held: "It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol. I, Para.122); State of Haryana v. Subash Chander, (1974) 1 SCR. 165: (AIR. 1973 SC. 2216); Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, (1976) 3 SCR. 68: (AIR. 1976 SC. 578) and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies Para.198." The aforesaid decision was cited with approval in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR. 1978 SC 327) at p 332. S.3(1) of the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952 is as follows: "3. Appointment of Commission. (1) The appropriate Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, and shall, if a resolution in this behalf is passed by the House of the People or, as the case may be, the Legislative Assembly of the State, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance and performing such functions and within such time as may be specified in the notification, and the Commission so appointed shall make the inquiry and perform the functions accordingly:" Construing the aforesaid provision in the Commission of Enquiry Act. a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Bhagwat Dayal Sharma v. The Union of India (ILR (1974) 1 Delhi 847) at p 851 held: "It is, therefore, clear that an inquiry under the said Act is not a judicial inquiry and the object of constituting a Commission of Inquiry under the Act is to enable the Government to make up its mind as to what legislative or administrative measures should be adopted to eradicate the evil found or to implement the beneficial objects it has in view. // is merely a fact finding body for the benefit of the Government and that is why even where there may be a definite matter of public importance, a Commission of Inquiry is appointed under the said Act only if it is necessary in the opinion of the appropriate Government to do so. Except in the case of a resolution by Parliament or the Legislature of a State in that behalf, there is no statutory or other obligation upon the appropriate Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry and, therefore, on the words of S 3 of the Act there cannot be a legal or statutory obligation upon the appropriate Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry even if there is a definite matter of public importance. This conclusion by itself would displace the contention on behalf of the petitioner that he has a legal or statutory right to compel the appointment of a Commission of inquiry whenever there is a definite matter of public importance...... ...Existence of a right is the sine qua non for the issue of a writ of mandamus," The Court further held at pages 854 and 855 as follows: "We do not find any persons having been specifically pointed out in the said Act who are entitled to call for the exercise of the power under S 3 The petitioner has clearly no right under the statute, namely, the said Act and, therefore, no locus standi to move this petition for a writ of mandamus." In that case the petitioner, a member of the Rajya Sabha and a former Chief Minister of the State of Haryana, moved the Central Government to appoint a commission of enquiry under the said Act to inquire into the charges contained in the memoranda filed by him against Mr. Bansilal, who was then the Chief Minister of Haryana. Bansilal, who was then the Chief Minister of Haryana. By letter dated 19-12-1973 the petitioner was informed by the Government that no case had been made out for entrusting the matter to the Commission of Enquiry. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner in that case filed the writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to appoint a commission of enquiry under S.3 of the Act. It was in that context, after explaining the scope of S.3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952 as extracted earlier, the court further held that the petitioner therein had no locus standi. The above decision was cited with approval in Vijay Mehta v. State of Rajasthan (AIR. 1980 Raj. 207). Therein Mal Lodha J. at page 210 held: "It is well settled that four prerequisite conditions for issuance of a writ of mandamus are these: 1. Whether the petitioner has a clear and specific right to relief demanded by him? 2. Whether there is a duty imposed by law on the respondent? 3. Whether such duty is of an imperative ministerial character involving no judgment or discretion on the part of respondent? and 4. Whether petitioner has any remedy other than by way of mandamus for the enforcement of right which has been denied to him?" I concur with the ratio laid down in the above cases. The said decisions are fully applicable to the facts of this case as well. 3. In the light of the above authorities, it is impossible, to say that the petitioner has a clear and specific right to the relief demanded by him nor is there a duty imposed by law on the 1st respondent I hold that the petitioner has no right to seek, the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to appoint a commission in exercise of the powers under S.3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act It is impossible to say that the petitioner will be a person who is specifically entitled to call for the exercise of power under S.3 of the Act. It is also not possible to state that the petitioner has no other adequate remedy. He could have moved the 1st respondent, if he was so advised. He did not do so for reasons best known to him. It is also not possible to state that the petitioner has no other adequate remedy. He could have moved the 1st respondent, if he was so advised. He did not do so for reasons best known to him. This is not one of those cases, where this Court will exercise its extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution, where the petitioner himself has no clear right or a strong case entitling him to the relief, prayed for. In this view of the matter, I hold that the O.P. is misconceived. It is unsustainable. It is dismissed in limine. Dismissed.