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:
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."
"… 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…"
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."
SANJAY KUMAR JHA V/s PRAKASH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY& ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11857-11859 OF 2018, SUPREME COURTOF INDIA, DATE OF DECISION: 05.12.2018, CORAM: R. BANUMATHI & INDIRABANERJEE, JJ.
"Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the High Court does not adjudicate, upon affidavits, disputed questions of fact."
"… It is well settled that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the findings recorded by a competent administrative authority, nor reappreciate evidence for itself to correct the error of fact, that does not go to the root of jurisdiction. The High Court does not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact based on evidence and substitute its own findings, which the High Court has done in this case. Even assuming that there had been any error in the computation of marks in respect of fixed and movable assets, the High Court could, at best, have remitted the case of respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary to the concerned authorities for reconsideration…"
KRISHNA CONTINENTAL LTD. V/s DELHIPOLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE & ORS, W.P. (C) NO. 5114 OF 2016, HIGH COURT OF DELHI, DATEOF DECISION: 02.06.2016, CORAM: MANMOHAN, J.
"Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, solely praying for refund of money against the State is not maintainable."
"… On the first point, we are of opinion that though the High Courts have power to pass any appropriate order in the exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, such a petition solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in a suit against the authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax. We have been referred to cases in which orders had been issued directing the State to refund taxes illegally collected, but all such cases had been those in which the petitions challenged the validity of the assessment and for consequential relief for the return of the tax illegally collected. We have not been referred to any case in which the Courts were moved by a petition under Article 226 simply for the purpose of obtaining refund of money due from the State on account of its having made illegal exactions… The parties had the right to question the illegal assessment orders on the ground of their illegality or unconstitutionality and therefore could take-action under Article 226 for the protection of their fundamental right, and the courts, on setting aside the assessment orders, exercised their jurisdiction in proper circumstances to order the consequential relief for the refund of the tax illegally realized. We do not find any good reason to extend this principle and therefore hold that no petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus will be normally entertained for the purpose of merely ordering a refund of money to the return of which the petitioner claims a right… We, therefore, hold that normally petitions solely praying for the refund of money against the State by a writ of mandamus are not to be entertained. The aggrieved party has the right of going to the Civil Court for claiming the amount and it is open to the State to raise all possible defences to the claim, defences which cannot, in most cases be appropriately raised and considered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction…"
SYED WASIF HUSAIN RIZVI V/s HASAN RAZAKHAN & OTHERS, CONSOLIDATION NO. 534 OF 2002, HIGH COURT OFALLAHABAD, DATE OF DECISION: 22.01.2016, CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA & JUSTICE RANJAN ROY
"Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 can be filed by a power of attorney holder?"
The donor of the power of attorney may be incapacitated from doing so temporarily for reasons or exigencies, such as, exigencies of service or station or, for that matter, an ailment which immobilizes him or her from pursuing the proceedings personally.
The important point to be noted, as a matter of principle, is that when the donor authorizes the donee to act on his or her behalf, the donee acts as an agent and is subject to the limitations which are created by the instrument by which he is authorized. The donee does not pursue a claim or right personal to him but it is the donor who espouses his own personal right through the holder of a power of attorney.
ROMA SONKAR V/s MADHYA PRADESH STATE PUBLICSERVICE COMMISSION & ANR., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7400-7401 OF 2018, SUPREME COURT OFINDIA, DATE OF DECISION: 31.07.2018, CORAM: KURIAN JOSEPH & SANJAY KISHANKAUL, JJ.
"Single Judge is not subordinate to Division Bench in intra court appeal (arising from the decision rendered in writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950), both exercise same jurisdiction."
"… We have very serious reservations whether the Division Bench in an intra court appeal could have remitted a writ petition in the matter of moulding the relief. It is the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench exercised the same jurisdiction. Only to avoid inconvenience to the litigants, another tier of screening by the Division Bench is provided in terms of the power of the High Court but that does not mean that the Single Judge is subordinate to the Division Bench. Being a writ proceeding, the Division Bench was called upon, in the intra court appeal, primarily and mostly to consider the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, in our view, the Division Bench needs to consider the appeal(s) on merits by deciding on the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, instead of remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge…"
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V/s MAJORGENERAL SHRI KANT SHARMA & ANR., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7400 OF2013, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, DATE OF DECISION: 11.03.2015, CORAM: S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA & N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
"The power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 is one of the basic essential features of the Constitution of India, 1950 and any legislation including the Armed Forces Act, 2007 cannot override or curtail jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950."
[Kanaiyalal Lalchand and Sachdev & Ors V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors, (2011) 2 SCC 782]
G. ARCHANA & ORS V/s STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS, WRIT PETITION NO. 14680 OF 2015, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DATE OF DECISION: 26.06.2015, CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE, JUSTICE S.V. BHATT & JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
"Whether a petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, can be entertained against the order of preventive detention passed under any enactment authorizing preventive detention?"
JACKY V/s TINY @ ANTONY & ORS., CIVILAPPEAL NO. 4453 OF 2014, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, DATE OF DECISION: 09.04.2014,CORAM: S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA & S.A. BOBDE, JJ.
The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.