JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought following reliefs : "a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to hear the dispute and passed the appropriate order in application dated 11.7.2014. b) issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. c) award full cost of the present writ petition to the petitioner." 3. Despite repeated query, the petitioner could not show as to under which provision, the so called application has been filed and respondents are under statutory obligation to decide the same before seeking writ of mandamus. 4. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus would lie only if the petitioner is enforcing a legal right and the respondents, who are under statutory obligation to do or not to do something, have failed to do so. 5. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and another (2008) 2 SCC 280 the Apex Court after referring to its earlier judgments in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh (1977) 4 SCC 145 ; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani Vs. N.M. Shah, AIR 1966 SC 334 , Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs. State of Bihar 1993 (1) SCC 485 observed as under: "There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition 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." 6. The above exposition of law makes it clear that writ of mandamus cannot be issued on mere asking unless the preconditions are satisfied. Since, in the present case these conditions are not satisfied, the petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.