Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court, in State Of Himachal Pradesh vs. Satpal Saini, has set aside certain directions to amend a tenancy law, issued by Himachal Pradesh High Court to the state, reiterating that the court in its judicial review cannot encroach upon the basic constitutional function which is entrusted to the legislature to determine whether a law should be enacted or amended. The Himachal Pradesh High Court, while allowing a writ petition, had issued directed the state to amend the provisions of of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, and the Rules. The state challenged these ‘directions’ before the apex court. A bench comprising Justice AM Sapre and Justice DY Chandrachud observed that the high court cannot direct the legislature either to enact a law or to amend a law which it has enacted for the simple reason that this constitutional function lies in the exclusive domain of the legislature. For the Court to mandate an amendment of a law – as did the Himachal Prad...

Orissa High Court has recently held that a writ application for payment of compensation for the death of a person in electrocution is maintainable when the undisputed facts clearly reveal the same. Petitioners, the unfortunate parents of Mr. Madhusudan Das, who died in electrocution, approached the High Court with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying, inter alia, for a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of their only son. The Petitioners stated in the Petition that, on 12.7.1997 evening while their son, Madhusudan Das was driving the cattle, who were damaging the standing paddy crops, from the field by holding a lathi, the said lathi touched the electric live line of the pump house, as a result of which, he got the electric shock, fell down and became senseless. Thereafter he was shifted to headquarter Hospital, Jajpur for treatment. On the way he expired. Justice AK Rath has co...

Asserting that it was state government's duty to maintain law and order and protect its citizens during hartals or bandhs, the Madras High Court has directed it to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation with interest to a bank employee, who lost an eye in a stone-pelting incident on the eve of a DMK bandh to protest party chief M Karunanidhi's arrest in 2001. Justice M Satyanarayanan passed the order yesterday while disposing of a petition by S Krishnaswamy, seeking a compensation of Rs 25 lakh from the state for the loss of vision and suffering caused to him by the injury inflicted on him on July 1, 2001. The judge said "The state government through an announcement had indicated that it had taken all necessary steps to maintain law and order problem and also ensured that public will not be put to any inconvenience on account of the bandh called for by DMK party following the arrest of DMK leader M Karunanidhi and also indicated that normal bus facilities would be in place." Th...

The Supreme Court of India in COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, LA MARTINIERE COLLEGE LUCKNOW, VS. VATSAL GUPTA AND ORS has set aside an Allahabad High Court order wherein it had entertained a Writ petition against an unaided minority private Institution and had passed certain directions. The following is the one page order by the Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Madan B. Lokur and R.K.Agrawal allowing the Appeal filed by the Management of the Institution. “Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Appellant No.1 is an unaided minority private institution. We see no reason how a writ petition against that institution could be entertained. The High Court was clearly in error in entertaining the writ petition and passing subsequent directions. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside.” Directing the unaided minority private Institution to allow the petitioner to pursue his educational career...

A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court Today has held that a writ of Mandamus can be issued to authorities to grant remission. The Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh has dismissed a writ petition preferred under Article 32 of Constitution of India, by the petitioners, who have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for more than 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months, praying for issue of writ of mandamus to the authorities commanding them to grant remission to them as per the provisions contained in Chapter XIX of the New Punjab Jail Manual, 1996. It is the case of the petitioners that Chapter XIX of the Manual lays down remission and award to the convicts depending upon good conduct and performance of duties allotted to them while they are undergoing sentenc...

The Calcutta High Court, in Indian Oil Officers’ Association vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, has held that an Association has a clear right to maintain this writ application on behalf of its members. Justice I.P. Mukerji referring to various Apex Court decisions, also observed that body corporate may not only sue or be sued for violation of Article 19 but it may also sue for violation of Article 14 or any other law. This observation was made in a Writ petition preferred by a registered Trade Union against IOC challenging a Memorandum of Understanding purportedly entered into by six members of this Association with the Corporation. It is argued IOC that “the writ was by the Association. It primarily complained of the infringement of fundamental rights by the Corporation under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Article 19 conferred those rights on citizens only. He cited The Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. the State of Bihar and others, The Automobile Products of India ...

Delhi High Court, refusing to entertain a writ petition by a Hotel fined with an amount of 41 Lakhs for non-compliance of statutory provisions of Environment Law for a period of more than twenty years, held that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable. The petitioner contended that, under the threat of imminent closure and penal actions,it paid  Rs.41 lakhs as condonation fee seeking consent to operate, but they are liable to pay Rs. 46,000/- only as per the previous fee structure. Referring to Suganmal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1740, the Court said that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable. The Court noting that for a period of twenty years, neither a “consent to establish” nor a “consent to operate” had been obtained, remarked “To say that the lapse on the part of the petitioner was an innocent non-compliance is to trivialise a statutory provision which has a direct ...

Delhi High Court, refusing to entertain a writ petition by a Hotel fined with an amount of 41 Lakhs for non-compliance of statutory provisions of Environment Law for a period of more than twenty years, held that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable. Referring to Suganmal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1740, the Court said that a writ petition solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/writ-petition-solely-praying-refund-money-state-not-maintainable-delhi-hc/

An alleged encroacher of public property cannot challenge an internal communication between two government officials on the issue just because a copy of it had been marked to him too, the Madras High Court Bench here has held. Justices S. Manikumar and C.T. Selvam passed the order while dismissing a writ petition filed by a private school at Guntur village in Tiruverumbur Taluk of Tiruchi district challenging a letter written by a Tahsildar directing a Block Development Officer to act against encroachments. Stating that the school could approach the court only when the revenue officials initiate action against it under the relevant enactments, the judges said that a communication sent by one official to another could not be challenged by way of a writ petition. BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               DATED:  24.03.2016 CORAM   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR           and THE HON'...

Karnataka High Court in M/S Deepak Apparels Pvt Ltd vs City Union Bank Ltd has held that writ petition is not ordinarily maintainable against the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, passed in exercise of the jurisdiction under S.17 of the SARFAESI Act. Full Bench answering a reference held that it can be entertained only if the court is convinced that it falls within the exceptional categories recognized by Apex Court Single Bench has expressed his doubts about the correctness in decision of Hotel Vandana Palace case wherein it was held that a writ petition is maintainable without filing an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal as provided under S.18 of the Act, on the ground that the pre-deposit is required under S.18 of the SARFAESI Act and in such circumstances, it cannot be considered as an efficacious remedy. The Full Bench referring to various rulings of the Apex Court observed “When extraordinary writ remedy is invoked, despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the Court sh...

A contractual dispute should not be decided by a high court by appointing a commission and going into facts, the Supreme Court stated while setting aside the order of the high court in the judgment, State of Kerala vs M K Jose. In this case, a contract for building a road was not completed on time despite extensions. The contract was terminated and the earnest money was forfeited, leading to the writ petition in the high court. It appointed a commission to go into the disputed facts and allowed the petition of the contractor. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that "this kind of orders in a contractual matter is ill-conceived. They not only convert the controversy to a disturbing labyrinth, but encourage frivolous litigation." The high court was criticised for allowing a roving enquiry while the contractor was abusing the process of law.

1) Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311 2) Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Damodar Prasad (1969) 1 SCR 620 3) State Bank of India v. M/s. Indexport Registered and others (1992) 3 SCC 159 4) Industrial Investment Bank of India Limited v. Biswanath Jhunihunwala (2009) 9 SCC 478 5) Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad AIR 1969 SC 556 6) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1 7) Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others (2003) 2 SCC 107 8) Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes (1964) 6 SCR 654 9) Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433 10) Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and others (1985) 1 SCC 260 11) Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and others (2001) 6 SCC 569 12) CCT, Orissa and others v. Indian Explosives Ltd. (2008) 3 SCC 688 13) City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir...

1) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 December, 2002 Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SC 2120, JT 2002 (10) SC 561, 2004 I OLR 81, (2003) 2 SCC 107 the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged

Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. All courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227 – Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all High Courts – Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of Tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts – There are no precedents in India for High Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Page of REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2548 OF 2009 RADHEY SHYAM & ANR. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS CHHABI NATH & ORS. .RESPONDENTS WITH SLP (C) NO.25828 OF 2013 JAGDISH PRASAD .PETITIONER VERSUS IQBAL KAUR & ORS. .RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J. 1. This matter has been placed before th...