Athar Minallah, C.J. The petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus. The petitioners have appeared person. They were asked whether before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Constitution' ) they had approached the competent authority i.e. respondent no.2. They have answered in the negative.
2. It is settled law that in order to seek a writ of mandamus certain pre-requisites are to be complied with before invoking the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. Reference in this regard may be made to the principles and law laid down by the august Supreme Court in "District Magistrate, Lahore and another vs. Syed Raza Kazim" [PLD 1961 Supreme Court 178] , wherein it has been held as follows:- "Now , having regard to the limited scope of the powers vested in the High Courts and this Court by the Laws (continuance in Force) Order to issue writs only of habeas corpus mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, we have to point out that the foundation for an application for a writ of mandamus (which alone is applicable in the present case as the function of the licensing authority is purely administrative) is that there must exist a legal right in the person seeking the writ to insist upon a clear duty being performed by some public officer or authority in respect of that right.
There are other good reasons, too, upon which this application for a writ of mandamus must fail. The accepted conditions for the grant of a writ of this nature are that it must be preceded by a demand of justice and the refusal thereof and that there should be no other equally expeditious, in expensive and efficacious remedy available to the person seeking this extraordinary remedy ."
3. In the light of the above, it is essen tial for a person who invokes the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to explicitly show that there exists a legal right in such a person to insist upon a clear duty being performed by some public officer in respect of that right. Moreover , that a demand for performance of such duty ought to have been made and the same had been met with refusal by the public officer or authority in relation to the right being asserted. A person seeking a writ of mandamus is further required to satisfy the Court that no other equally expeditious, in expensive and efficacious remedy is available to him or her .
4. For the above reasons, these petitions are not maintainable and, therefore, accordingly dismissed.