Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Court reiterated out that availability of an alternative remedy, would not be an embargo on the High Court’s power to entertain the petition under Article 226 in certain contingencies.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
“Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram is a regional body. Its parent body is the Shri Gandhi Ashram, Lucknow. There is no statute regulating the functioning of society or providing the State and its Officers with control over their affairs.”
An entity is required to be tested on three parameters namely, (a) financial, (b) functional, and (c) administration for its inclusion as ‘other authority’ in Article 12 of the Constitution.
“Once the agreement entered into between the parties is considered as a contract like any other contract, for the enforcement of the covenants of the contract or for any breach thereof, the parties have to work out their remedies under civil law.”
Calcutta High Court held that a party can resort to the writ jurisdiction only if there involves public law element and not to enforce a contract of personal service, including all matters relating to the service of the employee-confirmation, suspension, transfer, termination, etc.
The Calcutta High Court referred the issue to a larger bench in order to ensure judicial discipline and uniformity.
The interpretation of the term other authority has evolved over a period of time where the judicial dictum, at various instances has decided for inclusion or exclusion of various authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
The case revolved around a special package sanctioned by the Govt. of India for the revival of infrastructural projects which were affected severely due to rise of militancy in Jammu and Kashmir in the 1990s.
“It is more so when remedy provided under S. 70 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 happens to be alternate and more efficacious one”.
Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ cannot be issued against a Government- entity which has been subsequently privatized and no longer performs any public duty.
The writ court should not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution which will obstruct contractual rights between the parties.
The Supreme Court observed that availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the “maintainability” of a writ petition and that the rule, which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy provided by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law.
Supreme Court: On the issue of the scope of judicial review of action by the State in a matter arising from a
Patna High Court: In a writ petition filed for the quashing of the illegal appointments of Vice-Chancellors, Pro Vice Chancellors and other
“Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226.”
Supreme Court: The bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has lucidly explained the law on the jurisdiction in case of
Himachal Pradesh High Court: In the case where it was argued before the Court that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for
Delhi High Court: Stating that mere writing of a letter of representation cannot furnish an adequate explanation for the delay, Jyoti Singh,
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of interference in matters relating to Government contracts and tenders, the bench of Hemant Gupta* and V.