A division bench comprising Justice S Manikumar and Justice P T Asha while dismissing the petition, said, “Though on the averments we are of the view that the instant writ petition is a fit case to impose costs, we refrain from doing so with a hope that the petitioner would go through the judgements of the Supreme Court on public interest writ petitions and hereinafter refrain from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, except for genuine, bona fide cause, where there is public interest.”

The petitioner Y Akbar Ahmed had contended that Government should come forward with a regulation to fix a common rate for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food items in hotels, restaurants, fast foods, dhaba and star hotels.

He had submitted that a representation in this regard was sent to the Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies, Consumer Protection and Price Control on September 27, 2017 and thereafter an application dated November 20, 2017 under Right to Information Act, 2005 to the said authority. However, the lone reply received was from the Food and Consumer Protection Department, merely stating that his application has been forwarded to the Under Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department. Hence, he had no choice but to move the court seeking to direct the State to consider his representation. However, the bench on citing various Supreme Court orders, said, “A writ of mandamus can be issued by this court in its discretion only when it is shown that there is a non-discretionary legal duty upon the authority against whom the relief is sought for.”

“Also, the person approaching the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution has to prove that he has a legal right to be enforced against the authority and for the failure of performance of a legal or statutory duty by the authority against whom the relief is sought for,” the bench added before rejecting the petition.