Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2010 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (10) TMI 194 - SC - Indian LawsOrder - Reasoned order - appeal against the judgment and order dated 4-9-2002 passed by the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2/98 by which the High Court has set aside the judgment and order of the Financial Commissioner dated 3-11-1997 passed in Case No. 234/97-CA, and also the judgment and order of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies dated 26-8-1997. Presumption / Legal Fiction in law - The Legislature in its wisdom has not enacted any deeming provision providing that in case the resolution is not considered and finally decided by the Registrar within a period of six months, the resolution shall become effective and operative. It is the exclusive prerogative of the Legislature to create a legal fiction meaning thereby to enact a deeming provision for the purpose of assuming the existence of a fact which does not really exist. Even if a legal fiction is created by the Legislature, the court has to ascertain for what purpose the fiction is created, and it must be limited to the purpose indicated by the context and cannot be given a larger effect. More so, what can be deemed to exist under a legal fiction are merely facts and no legal consequences which do not flow from the law as it stands. It is a settled legal proposition that in absence of any statutory provision, the provision cannot be construed as to provide for a fiction in such an eventuality. More so, creating a fiction by judicial interpretation may amount to legislation, a field exclusively within the domain of the legislature. Writ of certiorari - The High Court ought to have considered that it was a writ of certiorari and it was not dealing with an appeal. The writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution can be issued only when there is a failure of justice and it cannot be issued merely because it may be legally permissible to do so. There must be an error apparent on the face of record as the High Court acts merely in a supervisory capacity. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes one on mere looking and does not need long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. Such errors may include the giving of reasons that are bad in law or inconsistent, unintelligible or inadequate. - Decision of high court set aside.
|