Judgment :- 1. Whether at the instance of the petitioner Association can the State be directed to create awareness by publishing in the Media (Electronic) and newspapers that A(H1N1) Influenza is caused by the virus transmitted from human to human and not by Pigs and the common name “Swine Flu” cannot be attributed to Pigs kept by the members of the petitioner association in their Pigsties for selling them as Pork, can be countenanced by this Court? 2. The petitioner is an Association of Pig Farmers Association formed in the year 2009 and claims to have around 60 members. There are more than 500 others are rearing White Pigs in the Pigsties run by them. The Pigs are reared in a scientific manner. They are also getting expert advice from the authorities. However, due to spread of Influenza A(H1N1) virus in the Country, a general scare has been created that it is spread through Pigs, which indirectly leads to an unnecessary scare among general public in some villages. People have convened meetings and asked owners to shut down their Pigsties. This led to the fall of their income and also completely ruining their business. Therefore, they wanted the State to make adequate publicities through media including newspapers to disabuse the minds of public regarding the real cause of Influenza and the nature of their transmission, so that unnecessary scare can be quelled and people will be allowed to eat pork without any inhibition. 3. The petitioner association as per the endorsement made in the court bundle have not filed the case in any public interest, but only in their private interest. If that is so, nothing prevented them from giving advertisements in newspapers and publishing materials, so that people may not be carried by any unsubstantiated rumors. Similar was the case of Poultry farm owners. When the spread of Avian flu came across the World, they themselves volunteered to give advertisements in newspapers telling general public the real cause for such influenza caused by virus. 4. Therefore, the interest groups such as petitioner association must take steps to carry necessary propaganda to enhance their business volume. They cannot compel the State to come to their rescue. 4. Therefore, the interest groups such as petitioner association must take steps to carry necessary propaganda to enhance their business volume. They cannot compel the State to come to their rescue. In the representation made to the respondent State dated 20.04.2012, they not only wanted adequate publicity to disabuse the minds of public, but also wanted the State to inform that Pork eating is harmless and will not have any side effect. 5. It is not clear as to how such a writ petition is maintainable at the instance of the private interest group to seek for such a direction. It is no doubt true that Influenza A (H1N1) otherwise known as Swine Flu, is generally believed to be spread through Pigs. Swine influenza (also called swine flu or pig flu) is an infection by any one of several types of swine influenza virus. Swine influenza virus (SIV) is any strain of the influenza family of viruses that is endemic in pigs. As of 2009, the known SIV strains include influenza C and the subtypes of influenza A known as H1N1, H1N2, H3N1, H3N2 and H2N3. Swine influenza virus is common throughout pig populations worldwide. Transmission of the virus from pigs to humans is not common and does not always lead to human influenza, often resulting only in the production of antibodies in the blood. If transmission does cause human influenza, it is called zoonotic swine flu. People with regular exposure to pigs are at increased risk of swine flu infection. The meat of an infected animal poses no risk of infection when properly cooked. Pigs experimentally infected with the strain of swine flu that is causing the current human pandemic showed clinical signs of flu within four days, and the virus spread to other uninfected pigs housed with the infected ones. 6. Influenza A(H1N1) virus is a subtype of influenza A virus and was the most common cause of human influenza (flu) in 2009. Some strains of H1N1 are endemic in humans and cause a small fraction of all influenza like illness and a small fraction of all seasonal influenza. H1N1 (pronounced “HEE-NEE” by health care professionals) strains caused a small percentage of all human flu infections in 2004-2005. Other strains of H1N1 are endemic in pigs (swine influenza) and in birds (avian influenza). Some strains of H1N1 are endemic in humans and cause a small fraction of all influenza like illness and a small fraction of all seasonal influenza. H1N1 (pronounced “HEE-NEE” by health care professionals) strains caused a small percentage of all human flu infections in 2004-2005. Other strains of H1N1 are endemic in pigs (swine influenza) and in birds (avian influenza). In June, 2009 the World Health Organization declared the new strain of swine origin H1N1 as a pandemic. This strain is often called swine flu by the public media. This novel virus spread worldwide and had caused about 17,000 deaths by the start of 2010. On August 10, 2010, the World Health Organization declared the H1N1 influenza pandemic over, staying worldwide flu activity had returned to typical seasonal patterns. 7. As of 26.04.2011, an H1N1 pandemic preparedness alert has been issued by the WHO for the Americas. The affected areas have included the Chihuahua region of Mexico where its severity and work load have been high. It is reported by the aforementioned Recombinomics source that the current vaccine (California/7/2009) for H1N1 influenza might be losing its effectiveness in 2011. 8. Since the State is a secular State as per the Constitution, they cannot advertise in any newspaper about the special features of pork eating especially when there are religious injunctions from some religions which have prohibited their followers from eating Pork. To cite a few, the Old Testament says as follows: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye no eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you. [Leviticus 11:7-8] And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it [is] unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.” [Deuteronomy 14:8 ] 9. In the Jewish Law relating to prohibition of pork, Pork is one of a number of foods forbidden from consumption by Jews. These foods are known as “non-kosher” foods. In order for a meat to be kosher, it must first come from a kosher animal. A kosher animal must be a ruminant and have split hooves – therefore cows, sheep, goats and deer are all kosher, whereas camels and pigs (having each only one sign of kashrut) are not kosher. 10. These foods are known as “non-kosher” foods. In order for a meat to be kosher, it must first come from a kosher animal. A kosher animal must be a ruminant and have split hooves – therefore cows, sheep, goats and deer are all kosher, whereas camels and pigs (having each only one sign of kashrut) are not kosher. 10. The Islamic Law also prohibits consumption of Pork. In this context, the following verses from Quran can be quoted : He has made unlawful for you only (carcass) that which dies of itself and blood and the flesh of swine and that on which the name of any other than Allah has been invoked. But he who is driven by necessity, being neither disobedient nor exceeding the limit, then surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful. [The Quran 16:116] He has made unlawful to you only (carcass) that which dies of itself, and blood and the flesh of swine, and that on which the name of any other than Allah has been invoked. But he who is driven by necessity, being neither disobedient nor exceeding the limit, it shall be no sin for him. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.” [The Quran 2:174 ] 11. Apart from these inhibiting factors, it must be noted that there should be an enforceable right on the part of the petitioner and corresponding obligation on the part of the State to do a particular thing. In the absence of the same, the writ in the nature of mandamus cannot be issued. The circumstances under which a writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued came to be considered by the Supreme Court in several decisions. It is relevant to cite a few decisions which will have a bearing on the present case. 12. In Director of Settlements, A.P. and others Vs. The circumstances under which a writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued came to be considered by the Supreme Court in several decisions. It is relevant to cite a few decisions which will have a bearing on the present case. 12. In Director of Settlements, A.P. and others Vs. M.R. Apparao and another reported in (2002) 4 SCC 638, the Supreme Court set out the scope and the manner of exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution and in paragraph 17, it was observed as follows: “17.) Coming to the third question, which is more important from the point of consideration of the High Court's power for issuance of mandamus, it appears that the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue writs, directions or orders in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore essentially, a power upon the High Court for issuance of high prerogative writs for enforcement of fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental or ordinary legal rights, which may come within the expression “for any other purpose”. The powers of the High Courts under Article 226 though are discretionary and no limits can be placed upon their discretion, they must be exercised along the recognised lines and subject to certain self-imposed limitations. The expression “for any other purpose” in Article 226, makes the jurisdiction of the High Courts more extensive but yet the Courts must exercise the same with certain restraints and within some parameters. One of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is that the Court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right has been infringed. In other words, existence of a legal right of a citizen and performance of any corresponding legal duty by the State or any public authority, could be enforced by issuance of a writ of mandamus. “Mandamus” means a command. It differs from the writs of prohibition or certiorari in its demand for some activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed. “Mandamus” means a command. It differs from the writs of prohibition or certiorari in its demand for some activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed. Mandamus is a command issued to direct any person, corporation, inferior courts or Government, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. A mandamus is available against any public authority including administrative and local bodies, and it would lie to any person who is under a duty imposed by a statute or by the common law to do a particular act. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandamus, the applicant has to satisfy that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition (Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P.). ........” 13. Subsequently, in Union of India and others Vs. C. Krishna Reddy reported in (2003) 12 SCC 627 , the Supreme Court held that it is only in case of failure on the part of an Officer to discharge his statutory obligation, a direction will issue and there must be a legal duty imposed on the officer and the aggrieved party must have a legal right under the statute to enforce performance and in paragraph 13, it was observed as follows: “13.) It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of the writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. Therefore, in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. [See Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Therefore, in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. [See Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh, AIR para 15, Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah, Dy. Custodian cum Managing Officer3 and Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar4.]” 14. The Supreme Court held that unless there is subsisting right and enforceable in a court of law and corresponding legal duty on the part of the Government, no writ will lie and any direction can be issued only in consonance with law and not in violation of statutory provisions, vide its judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 675 and in paragraphs 45 and 46, it was observed as follows: “45.) Again, in our considered opinion, it was incumbent on the employees to show the right of absorption of retrenched employees in government departments or other public sector undertakings. The petitioners had prayed for a writ of mandamus which presupposes a legal right in favour of the applicant. Such right must be a subsisting right and enforceable in a court of law. There must be corresponding legal duty on the part of the respondent Corporation or the Government which required the Corporation or the Government “to do that which a statute required it to do”. No such right of absorption has been shown by the petitioners. Nor could any such corresponding duty of the respondents be shown to the High Court by the employees. ...... 46.) It is well settled that a court of law can direct the Government or an instrumentality of State by mandamus to act in consonance with law and not in violation of statutory provisions. Unless a court records a finding that act of absorption of all employees of the Corporation either in government department or in any other public sector undertaking is in accordance with law, no writ can be issued. Therefore, even on that ground, the directions of the High Court deserve to be set aside.” 15. In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and bereft of any legal reasons. Therefore, even on that ground, the directions of the High Court deserve to be set aside.” 15. In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and bereft of any legal reasons. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.