ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission for operation of the Helicopter for the purpose of flower drop on the newly built house of the petitioner, on considering the representation dated 30.12.2016 as at Annexure-D to the petition. 2. The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Mullur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. In a property which had been owned by the grand father of the petitioner and having succeeded to the same, the petitioner has built a house and has fixed the house warming ceremony on 09.02.2017. In addition to the regular function to be held on the said day, the petitioner is also stated to have chartered a Helicopter owned by ‘Deccan Charters Limited’, Jakkur Aerodrome, Bangalore for the purpose of dropping flowers on the house after the initial pooja is performed. In that regard, the petitioner is stated to have indicated the same in the invitation card distributed and therefore, in that light, the petitioner having made the representation as at Annexure-D and the same not being considered by the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus. 3. When the petition is taken up for consideration today, the learned Government Advocate has brought on record an endorsement dated 05.02.2017 wherein, it is indicated that the representation made by the petitioner has been considered and the request is rejected through the endorsement. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would however contend that such endorsement is not sustainable and the reasons assigned therein is also contrary to the factual position inasmuch as when another owner of the property in the same vicinity namely, Sri M.K. Manohar had sought for similar permission, the same had been granted and in that light, there cannot be any discrimination among two citizens of the same area and as such, the permission as sought by the petitioner will have to be considered by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner in that view has referred to Article 14 of the Constitution of India wherein, it provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before any law or equal protection of law within the territory of India. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in that view has referred to Article 14 of the Constitution of India wherein, it provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before any law or equal protection of law within the territory of India. 5. Having noticed the averments made in the petition and the submissions made at the bar, at the outset, it is to be reckoned that the position of law is well settled that before this Court issues a mandamus, the petitioner would have to establish that a legal right is available and that, such legal right as available in law with the corresponding duty on the authority to discharge such duty has not been performed by the authority, who is required to perform such function. It is only in such circumstance, a command is made by issue of mandamus to perform such right. 6. In the instant facts, even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order dated 20.02.2016 whereby, permission had been granted to one Sri M.K. Manohar for a similar purpose, it is not brought on record as to the provision of law under which the respondents are required to consider such permission and the duty cast on the respondents to grant such permission in all cases where such permission is sought. Merely because permission was granted to another person, there can be no assumption that it had been considered as mandated in law. 7. Therefore, even if Article 14 of the Constitution of India is kept in view, in the instant facts, it cannot be considered as a discrimination as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as no such right or violation of right is pointed out. If for some reason, the respondents have granted permission to any other person and when the obligation to grant in all cases is not pointed out with reference to any provision of law, a mandamus of the present nature as sought in the instant petition would not arise. 8. In that view, I am of the opinion, the discretion to issue a mandamus need not be exercised in a matter of the present nature. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit stands disposed of. In view of disposal of the petition for the reasons stated above, I.A.No.1/2017 for impleading is not necessary and the same is accordingly disposed of.