The governing principle here is that mandamus is available only when a public authority is under an existing legal duty, imposed by the Constitution, a statute, or a rule, and it has failed to perform that duty. It cannot be used to create a new duty or to direct a legislature on what laws to pass, since law-making is a discretionary, policy function of the legislature, not a compellable duty owed to any individual.
Applying this to the facts: there is no constitutional or statutory provision that obliges the government to pass a law specifically on climate change. Calling the remedy "equitable" or "discretionary" does not change this, discretion in granting mandamus only comes into play once a duty is shown to exist, and here none does. Nor is the outcome tied to whether a fundamental right is violated, since mandamus is available for breach of any legal duty, not fundamental rights alone, so that is not the operative reason either.
Since the government owes no legal duty to legislate on this subject, the writ petition cannot succeed on this ground.
The correct answer is that mandamus cannot be granted, because no legal duty is imposed on the government to pass such a law.
Mandamus is confined to compelling the performance of public duties, obligations that a public authority or a person discharging public functions owes to the public at large or to a class of persons, and that are traceable to a statute, rule, or constitutional provision. It is not a substitute for ordinary civil remedies available for breach of contract between private parties.
Here, Mr. A and Mr. B are simply parties to a private contract of sale of goods. Whatever obligation Mr. A owes Mr. B arises solely from that contract and is owed to Mr. B alone, not to the public. Labelling mandamus a discretionary remedy does not change this, discretion only matters once a qualifying public duty is shown, and none exists on these facts. Similarly, the fundamental-rights angle is beside the point, since mandamus is not limited to fundamental-rights breaches, so that is not why the petition fails. Framing the absence of a statutory duty as a reason mandamus should be granted also gets the analysis backwards, since it is precisely that absence which defeats the petition.
Mr. B's proper recourse lies in a suit for breach of contract or specific performance under ordinary civil law, not a writ petition.
The correct answer is that mandamus cannot be granted, because Mr. B's right under the contract is a private right.
A useful way to analyse mandamus cases is to first ask whether the authority's duty is mandatory or discretionary. Where a statute lays down objective conditions for granting a benefit, such as a license, and directs that it must be granted once those conditions are met, the authority's role becomes purely ministerial. It no longer has any choice in the matter, and refusal in the face of fulfilled conditions is an unlawful failure to perform a public duty, which mandamus exists to correct.
On the facts, Mr. X fulfilled every condition the statute prescribed, yet the officer refused to issue the license. That refusal breaches a clear statutory obligation, so mandamus is available regardless of whether any fundamental right is also affected, since mandamus reaches ordinary statutory duties too, not just fundamental-rights breaches. Nor can the refusal be excused as an exercise of discretion, because the statute leaves the officer no discretion once conditions are satisfied, the duty is mandatory, not optional.
The failure to issue the license despite satisfied conditions is itself the violation of public duty that grounds the writ.
The correct answer is that mandamus can be granted, compelling the licensing officer to issue the license.
Since this is an "identify the incorrect statement" question, the quickest approach is to check each option against the one defining feature of mandamus, that it enforces public duties, not private ones.
Statements A, B and C all describe well-settled features of mandamus: it protects a petitioner's existing legal right, it is directed at an authority that has neglected a mandatory duty, and its underlying purpose is to prevent the disorder that would follow if public duties went unperformed. None of these misstates the law, so none of them is the incorrect option.
Statement D, however, describes mandamus as compelling performance of "private duties" that are administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. That description is flawed at its core, administrative, ministerial and statutory duties enforceable by mandamus are public duties owed to the public or a section of it, not private duties owed between individuals. Private duties are the domain of ordinary civil suits, not writ jurisdiction.
The correct answer is Option D, since it wrongly calls these duties "private" when they are properly public in character.