Scope Of Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India: Important Judgments [Part-1]

SARVEPALLI RAMAIAH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. V/s DISTRICTCOLLECTOR CHITTOOR DIST. & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7461 OF 2009, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,DATE OF DECISION: 14.03.2019, CORAM: R. BANUMATHI & INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ. "Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is directed, not against the decision, but the decision-making process." It was held that: Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, only on grounds of perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity. Except on these grounds administrative decisions cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the extraordinary power of judicial review.A decision is vitiated by irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have taken the decision, having regard to the materials on record.A decision may sometimes be set aside and quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 on the ground of illegality. This is when there is an apparent error of law on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision and/or in other words an apparent error, but for which the decision would have been otherwise.Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is directed, not against the decision, but the decision-making process. Of course, a patent illegality and/or error apparent on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision may vitiate the decision-making process.In exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the court does not sit in appeal over the decision impugned, nor does it adjudicate hotly disputed questions of fact. ROSHINA T V/s ABDUL AZEEZ K.T. & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11759 OF 2018, SUPREME COURT OFINDIA, DATE OF DECISION: 03.12.2018, CORAM: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE & INDUMALHOTRA, JJ. "The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is not available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged." It was held that: A regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is not available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged; in such cases, the court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned.The High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant.In Para 18 of the Judgment it was observed that: "… In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, while so directing exceeded its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. Indeed, the High Court in granting such relief, had virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit and itself to a Civil Court. In our view, it was not permissible…" A dispute regarding possession of flat between two private individuals can be decided only by the civil court in civil suit or by the criminal court in Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 but not in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.SMT. PANPATI DEVI & ANR. V/s RAM BARATRAM & ORS., W.P. (C) NO. 2617 OF 2018, HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND(RANCHI), DATE OF DECISION: 07.03.2019, CORAM: SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J."Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 the High Court normally annuls or quashes an order or proceedings, but, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the High Court, apart from annulling the proceeding, can also substitute the impugned order by the order which the inferior court or tribunal should have passed." It was held that: There is no dispute about the proposition of law that the provision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is to be exercised by the High Court if there is error apparent on the face of record. However, Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 does not vest the High Court with limitless power; power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court by virtue of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is not to be exercised unless there has been:An unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in the inferior court or tribunal; or,Gross abuse of jurisdiction by an inferior court or tribunal; or,An unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the inferior court or tribunal.The High ...

Scope Of Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India: Important Judgments [Part-1]

Shivam Goel

Tags