ORDER : The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief: “the respondents authorities may very kindly be directed to provide ambulance road facility under the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to the petitioner who is a disabled person, along with other villagers, as the land to the extent of 15-20 meters is owned and possessed by the State of Himachal Pradesh under the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972, in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. It is averred that the petitioner is a locomotor impaired person having disability to the extent of 80%. He has worked as Teacher and superannuated in the year 2020. The petitioner resides at village Jakhdhar, Tehsil Dadasiba and his house is situated at a distance of 15-20 meters from the main road. It is quite difficult for the petitioner and villagers to have access to health care facilities, more particularly, when the petitioner is physically disabled. The stretch from the main road to the house of the petitioner is a ‘Kachha’ path and unmetalled one, which is existing over Khasra No.1750, belonging to the State Government. Therefore, it is very convenient to the State Government to construct a road over this path and for this purpose, the petitioner had already approached the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, S.D.M. Dehra and Tehsildar Dadasiba, District Kangra and other agencies, but of no avail. Hence, this petition. 3. The respondents filed their reply, wherein preliminary objections including very maintainability of the petition have been raised on the ground that no fundamental or legal right of the petitioner has been violated so as to afford him cause of action to maintain this petition. It is alleged that there is no public interest involved in the instant petition and the same has been filed by the petitioner only with an intention to grab the land owned and possessed by the State Government for his individual interest. It is further alleged that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and concealed material facts from it. It is averred that the house of the petitioner is ancestral and was constructed by keeping in mind all the conditions on the spot. It is further alleged that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and concealed material facts from it. It is averred that the house of the petitioner is ancestral and was constructed by keeping in mind all the conditions on the spot. The petitioner already has one common path, which leads to his house and the same path is being used by all the residents of the vicinity and others, but the petitioner is adamant to get road from the main road to his house from the government land so that his personal vehicle No. HP39E-2334 could reach to his house. It is also averred that there is a common path leading to the house of the petitioner from main road and the petitioner is having option to increase the width of the said path, which is existing over his own land. Further, there is no representation from the local inhabitants and residents to the local administration for providing ambulance road facility. It is averred that if any road facility, as claimed by the petitioner, is provided on the land in question, then the petitioner would create hurdle to other inhabitants/residents for the free ingress and outgress from his adjoining land and the alleged benefit of road would only be limited to the petitioner alone. It is lastly averred that the land in question is situated at a prime location adjoining to the main road and can be utilized by the government for the benefit of the society at large. 4. On merits, averments made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and elaborated. 5. The petitioner neither sought permission nor filed rejoinder to controvert all the aforesaid averments. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record. 7. It is more than settled that the primary purpose of a writ of mandamus, is to protect and establish rights and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law. It is designed to promote justice (ex debito justiceiae). The grant or refusal of the writ is at the discretion of the court. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. It is designed to promote justice (ex debito justiceiae). The grant or refusal of the writ is at the discretion of the court. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established. 8. In Wharton's Law Lexicon, the word 'Right' means; 1. is a legally protected interest, 2. is an averment of entitlement arising out of legal rules, 3. right is an interest recognised and protected by moral or legal rules and 4. right, comprehends every right known to the law. 9. In K.J.Aiyar's Judicial Dictionary, the word 'Right' means; 1. a right is a legally protected interest and 2. a right is an interest which is recognised and protected by law. 10. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, the word 'Right' means, is where one hath a thing that was taken from another wrongfully, as by disseisin, discontinuance, or putting out, or such like, and the challenge or claim that he hath who should have the thing, is called right. 11. Writ of mandamus cannot be issued merely because a person is praying for. One must establish the right first and then he must seek for the prayer to enforce the said right. If there is failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for mandamus. The said position is well settled in a series of decisions. 12. In Comptroller and Auditor General of India vs. K.S.Jegannathan, AIR 1987 SC 537 : 1986 (2) SCC 679 , a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edition, Vol.I. Paragraph 89, about the efficacy of mandamus: "89. Nature of Mandamus.-- .... is to remedy defects of justice; and accordingly it will issue, to the end that justice may be done, in all cases where there is a specific legal right and no specific legal remedy, for enforcing that right; and it may issue in cases where, although there is an alternative legal remedy, yet that mode of redress is less convenient, beneficial and effectual." 13. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors. (1996) 9 SCC 309 , in paragraph 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: “Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition....” 14. As observed above a writ of mandamus means a command which is issued in favour of a person who establishes an inherent legal right in his case. Such a writ is issued against a person who has a legal duty or obligation to perform but has failed or neglected to do so. It needs no special emphasis to state that such a legal duty emanates either from discharge of a public duty or operation of law. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Director of Settlements, A.P. & Ors. v. M.R. Apparao & Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 638 wherein it has been stated thus: "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 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. 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 UP, AIR 1962 SC 1183 ). The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law." 15. In Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the said issue and held that 'for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. 16. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain, (2008) 2 SCC 280 in paragraphs 11 and 12 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.: Note 187.-Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. Note 192.-Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. Note 196.-Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Note 206.- ... The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to support his action. 17. These very principles have been adopted in our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Note 206.- ... The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to support his action. 17. These very principles have been adopted in our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh,1978 SCR (1) 375, after referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 120, Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v. Nalanda College, [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 144 and Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 964, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows in para 15 of the Reports (SCC): (Sipahi Singh case, SCC pp. 152-53) 15. ... 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. The chief function of a 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. It follows, therefore, that in order that 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.... In the instant case, it has not been shown by Respondent 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on Respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that Respondent 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same. 18. Therefore, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. 19. 18. Therefore, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. 19. From the perusal of the petition, it would be noticed that the entire thrust of the petitioner for filing the petition is to seek ambulance road facility on the ground that he is a locomotor impaired person having disability to the extent of 80%. However, in case disability certificate (Annexure P-1) is seen, it would be noticed that no doubt, the petitioner suffers disability to the extent of 80%, that too locomotor impaired, but this disability, being permanent in nature, is on account of his amputation of the hand above elbow, which, by no stretch of imagination, can cause any impediment or difficulty to the petitioner to reach to his house as he has been doing it for the past 60 years. 20. The petition is clearly mischievous as the petitioner during his entire service career did not file the petition knowing fully well that it would be an abuse of process of law and would invite disciplinary proceedings or other proceedings against him, but that does not give a license to a person, who has retired from service, that too a teacher, to approach this court with such a frivolous petition without there being any legal or other right. 21. On a pointed query of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any violation of legal or other right of the petitioner so as to afford him cause of action to file and maintain this petition. 22. To say the least, the petitioner has tried to mislead this Court and even gone to the extent of misusing and exploiting his disability to claim relief, which otherwise is not admissible to him under the law. 23. As observed above, the petitioner has neither sought permission nor filed any rejoinder to controvert the stand taken by the respondents. 24. In this view of the matter, necessary inference and conclusion that can be drawn on the basis of the pleadings: – i. There is no public interest involved in the instant petition and the same has been filed only with an intention to grab the land owned and possessed by the State Government for petitioner’s individual interest. ii. 24. In this view of the matter, necessary inference and conclusion that can be drawn on the basis of the pleadings: – i. There is no public interest involved in the instant petition and the same has been filed only with an intention to grab the land owned and possessed by the State Government for petitioner’s individual interest. ii. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and concealed material facts, more particularly the fact that the house of the petitioner is ancestral and had been constructed bearing in mind all the conditions existing on the spot. iii. The petitioner already has one common path, which leads to his house and the same is being used by all the residents of the area and others, but the petitioner is adamant to get road from the main road, that too over the government land, so that his personal vehicle No. HP39E-2334 could reach to his house. iv. There is a common path leading to the house of the petitioner from main road, width thereof can be increased, which is otherwise existing over the land of the petitioner, but he does not want to part with the same. v. There is no representation from the local inhabitants or residents of the area to the local administration for providing ambulance road facility. vi. Apprehension of the respondents that in case the petitioner is provided road facility, as sought for, then he would create hurdle for other inhabitants of residents for the free ingress and outgress cannot be stated to be ill-founded. vii. Since the land in question is situated at a prime location adjoining to the main road, the same can be better utilized by the government for the benefit of the society at large. 25. Litigation is not a pastime and such kind of petition can, under no circumstances, be encouraged much less entertained, more particularly, when neither there is any contractual or legal right in the writ petitioner’s favour nor is there any corresponding duty which casts an obligation to provide a path upon the respondents. Clearly, the petitioner has abused the process of law and, therefore, made himself liable for payment of costs. 26. Clearly, the petitioner has abused the process of law and, therefore, made himself liable for payment of costs. 26. In view of aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.30,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the H.P. High Court Advocates’ Welfare fund within a period of 90 days from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. For compliance, list on 8.3.2022.