The Supreme Court in a recent case of
Rashina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors. has held that Writ jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts, including that of a High Court under
Article 226 of the
Constitution, cannot be invoked to replace alternative remedies in ordinary disputes.
A Bench comprising of
JusticesAbhay Manohar Sapre and
Indu Malhotra was hearing an appeal filed against the final judgment and order of the Kerala High Court in which the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and directed the appellant, by issuing a writ of mandamus, to restore the possession of the disputed flat. The High Court had rendered the decision in question primarily on factual merit, on a writ petition filed under Article 226. This writ petition was filed, despite a pending civil suit in the matter before the Munsiff Court.
The Bench while overturning the decision passed by the Kerala High Court has found that the writ petition filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution was wholly misconceived
. The Bench noted that the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction would only come in where there is a violation of statutory duties.
“It has been consistently held by this Court 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 shall not be 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 Bench observed. Moreover, noting that the factual issues cropping up from the property dispute in question ought to have been decided by ordinary civil courts. The Bench said that “
These questions, in our view, were pure questions of fact and could be answered one way or the other only by the Civil Court in a properly constituted civil suit and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court.” The Bench, also observed that
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. “
It is held that 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. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant,” the judgment reads. In view of the above observations, the Bench allowed the appeal and stated that “
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 the said flat between the two private individuals could be decided only by the Civil Court in civil suit or by the Criminal Court in Section 145 Cr.P.C proceedings but not in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.” Consequently, the order passed by the Kerala High Court was set aside and the parties were granted liberty to approach the appropriate civil court to resolve their dispute.
4 New Additional Judges Appointed to Kerala High Court
Legal Insiders
Feb 23, 2021
Namya Bose
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
2 Shares
The Kerala High Court recently saw the appointment of four new additional judges by the President of India, of which two were advocates and other two were Judicial officers. All four Additional Judges, namely-Advocates Murali Purushottaman, Ziyad Rahman, District Judges Karunakaran Babu and Kauser Edappaghath have been appointed for the period of two years. The proposal to elevate the above mentioned persons to Judges of the High Court of Kerala was approved by the Supreme Court...
State cannot act in a Shylockian manner and squeeze money from its citizens: Kerala HC [READ JUDGMENT]
Judiciary
Feb 04, 2021
ADITI AGGARWAL
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
11 Shares
The Kerala High Court bench comprising of Justice N. Nagaresh on Tuesday ( February 3, 2021) stated that “The State and its authorities could not act in a Shylockian manner and squeeze money from its citizens” while observing State’s failure to return the money paid twice for a certain due by the Petitioners in the case of M/s. Seahorse Ship Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.FACTS OF THE CASE:The petitioner who was a shipping Agent of the vessel M. V. Cape Chronos,...
1358 Views
![Accused Has To Be Subjected To Breath Analyser or Blood Test to Attract Drunk Driving under S.185 of MV Act, 1988 : Kerala HC [READ ORDER]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2021/01/lj_1488_kerala_high_co.jpeg)
![Chief Justice and Judge of Kerala High Court Donate Rs. 25,000 Each for Treatment of Children with Rare Disease [READ ORDER]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2020/11/lj_1379_kerala_high_court.jpeg)
![HC Can’t Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 To Replace Ordinary Alternative Remedies: SC [Read Judgment]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2019/08/lj_9636_HC_Can’t_Entertain_Writ_Petition_Under_Article_226_To_Replace_Ordinary_Alternative_Remedies_SC.JPG)
![State cannot act in a Shylockian manner and squeeze money from its citizens: Kerala HC [READ JUDGMENT]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2021/02/lj_4655_kerla_high.jpg)
Facebook Comments