Scope of Article 226

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/10293/10293_2017_32_1503_21962_Judgement_06-May-2020.pdf
17. The appellant ­Bank has rightly invited our attention to the Constitution   Bench   decision   of   this   Court   in  Thansingh  Nathmal (supra).  In paragraph 7, the Court dealt with the scope jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the following words:
“7. …   The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article  226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the   exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the   Articles.   But   the   exercise   of   the  jurisdiction   is discretionary: it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction  demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self­imposed limitations. Resort that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief  which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct   errors   of   fact,   and   does   not   by   assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal,   or   even   itself   in   another   jurisdiction   for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up.
Thansingh Nathmal & Ors. vs. Superintendent of
Taxes, Dhubri & Ors. 2 AIR 1964 SC 1419 and Suganmal vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors.AIR 1965 SC 1740 to contend that the writ petition ought to have
been dismissed by the High Court.
9. The respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that
merely because the Bank has disputed the relevant facts, does
not warrant dismissal of writ petition, as the jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide
including it can cross­ examine the concerned affiant(s) and
enquire   into   all   aspects   of   the   matter.     To   buttress   this
submission, reliance is placed on Smt. Gunwant Kaur & Ors.
4 (1969) 3 SCC 769
5 (1974) 2 SCC 706
6 1991 Supp (2) SCC 340
7 (2004) 3 SCC 553
8 AIR 1959 SC 960
9 (2013) 10 SCC 75

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Registered Document is presumed to be valid unless otherwise proved

 https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/29674/29674_2019_34_1501_24672_Judgement_16-Nov-2020.pdf Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. 8 (2006) 5 SCC 353 The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below: “27.  There   is   a   presumption   that   a   registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of  proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.  In Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 582 "It has b...
Read more

Whether is was any reason explained to pass the order by authority

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf The matter was reminded back with an opportunity to the State to provide reasons for the administrative decision taken to rescind the policy  The authority has choice to explained the reasons or pass the fresh order on the fresh cause of action with explained reasons. There cannot be post hoc justification of the action. The post hoc justification doctrine merely requires that courts assess agency action based on the official explanations of the agency decision makers, and not based on after-the-fact explanations advanced by agency lawyers during litigation. As the D. C. Circuit has explained, the post hoc justification doctrine “is not a time barrier which freezes an agency’s exercise of its judgment after an initial decision has been made and bars it from further articulation of its reasoning. It is a rule directed at reviewing courts which forbids judges to uphold agency action on the basis of rationales offered by anyo...
Read more

Articles

Image
As  Home News Columns Dealstreet Interviews Apprentice Lawyer Viewpoint Legal Jobs Vikram Hegde, Shantanu Lakhotia COLUMNS Transfer Petitions and video conferencing: Time for another look at Santhini? Unless the courts contemplate complete stoppage of work till free travel without risk of being infected becomes possible, video conference hearings are inevitable. Vikram Hegde   &  Shantanu Lakhotia Jul 1, 2020, 10:05 AM IST As lawyers, we are already grappling with what we may call  video conference vagaries  since the beginning of the lockdown. At the same time, we are all aware that sooner rather than later, litigants will also have to start appearing in courts by video conference. The story of the interface of a litigant with the court being mediated by a video link starts with the amendment of Section 167(2)(b) of the CrPC, which provides, among other things, that a magistrate may extend the detention of an accused in judicial custody. Such extension...
Read more