LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 24 July 2026

Can a writ of mandamus restrain authorities from enforcing a statute whose validity has not been challenged?

V.Krishnamurthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu
WA No. 192 of 2026 · WA No. 192 of 2026
Coram: Justice N.Mala · Justice G.Jayachandran
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.3 Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Ta…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. So long as the statutory provisions remain unchallenged and hold the field, the Court cannot issue a writ restraining the authorities from discharging the statutory duties cast upon them; that would amount to interdicting them from enforcing a valid subsisting law, which is impermissible in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. No court can direct a Government to refrain from enforcing a provision of law.

Headnote

Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 — s.4(1) — s.4(1-A) — Eighth Schedule — Lifetime tax — Rules not a precondition — Double taxation — Mandamus — Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 — Eighth Schedule — Rules not a precondition to the levy — Held: The Schedule fixing lifetime tax by the cost and the age of the vehicle is self-contained and constitutes sufficient statutory guidance, so framing fresh Rules is unnecessary; the existing Taxation Rules in any event prescribe the mode of payment and the competent authority. (¶25) Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 — s.4(1) — s.4(1-A) — Prescription not to be imported — Held further: Sub-section (1-A) contains no requirement of prescription by Rules, unlike sub-section (1), and that requirement cannot be imported into it; the provisions on quarterly and half-yearly payment have no bearing on a one-time lifetime tax. (¶26) Mandamus — Vires unchallenged — No direction to refrain from enforcing a law — Held further: So long as a statutory provision stands unchallenged and holds the field, no writ can restrain the authorities from discharging the duties it casts upon them; such a prayer is misconceived. (¶16) Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 — Double taxation — Credit for tax already paid — Held further: Where only the difference is collected after crediting the tax already paid under the earlier regime, the plea of double taxation does not arise. Appeal dismissed. (¶28, ¶29)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 16We have our own reservations on the maintainability of the prayer in the writ petition. The appellant has admittedly not challenged the vires of the amended provisions. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the relief of mandamus sought, is wholly misconceived and consequently not maintainable. So long as the statutory provisions remain unchallenged and hold the field, this Court cannot issue a writ restraining the respondents from discharging the statutory duties cast upon them. Granting such a relief would in effect, amount to interdicting the statutory authorities from enforcing a valid subsisting law, which is plainly impermissible in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Judge, rightly relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Chand Hem Raj and Others Vs. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, Himachal Pradesh and Others, reported in 1971 [2] SCC 747, wherein it was held as follows:- ‘’7…..No Court can give a direction to a Government to refrain from enforcing a provision of law. Under these circumstances, we must hold that the relief asked for by the appellant cannot be granted.’’
Acts & Sections
s.3 Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974s.4(1) Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974s.4(1-A) Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974Eighth Schedule Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1974

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of V.Krishnamurthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Is the framing of Rules a precondition to collecting a lifetime tax that a statutory Schedule already quantifies?Can a requirement that tax be paid in the manner prescribed by Rules, appearing in one sub-section, be read into another sub-section that does not contain it?Does converting a periodic vehicle tax into a lifetime tax amount to double taxation?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections