JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Aloke Kumar learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner, states that there is a power vested with the State Government under Section 14 (1)(e) of U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 2007") to utilise the fund, exclusively for development or facilitating the trade, commerce and industry in the State which shall include providing finance, aids, grants and subsidies for creating developing and maintaining pollution free environment in the concerned area. 3. Relying on the same, petitioner claimed that he is installing a Pollution Treatment Plant and for that purpose requisite finance must be provided by State Government. However, after going through the provision carefully, we find that it is a power vested in State to utilise its fund in a particular manner but it does not confer any individual right upon anyone to enforce or compel the Government to provide the said fund to individuals for discharge of various functions enshrined in the aforesaid Act. 4. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus would lie only if the petitioners are 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. In view of above, we find no merit in this writ petition. Dismissed.