With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements: 1. Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty. 2. Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company. 3. Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto. Which of the statements given above are correct?

Analysis of the three statements on writs issued by Indian Courts: Statement 1 is correct. Mandamus (literally 'we command') is a writ commanding a public authority to perform a public or statutory duty it has failed to discharge. As a general rule it does not lie against a private individual or a purely private organisation. The well-established exception is that if a private body has been entrusted with a public duty (statutory or otherwise), mandamus can be issued against it to enforce that duty. So the statement is accurate. Statement 2 is incorrect. A Government Company (e.g., a Public Sector Undertaking) is treated as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 (per R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority, Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, etc.) and is amenable to writ jurisdiction. Where such a company is discharging a public function or a public/statutory duty, the writ of mandamus can certainly be issued against it. The blanket assertion that mandamus 'will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company' is therefore wrong. Statement 3 is correct. Quo Warranto (literally 'by what authority') calls upon a person holding a public office to show under what authority they hold it. Unlike most other writs, the rule of locus standi is relaxed for Quo Warranto — any public-spirited person (not just the aggrieved party) can move the High Court or Supreme Court for this writ to challenge an illegal usurpation of public office. Therefore, only statements 1 and 3 are correct, and the answer is option C.