Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2012 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 681 - HC - Indian LawsRent Act - whether various decisions of Apex Court are inconsistent - Writ petition under Article 226 - maintainability – The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction - binding precedent - interpretation of various decisions of apex court - petition against an order of Single Judge passed in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. “Incuria” literally means “carelessness”. In practice per incuriam is taken to mean per ignoratium. The courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. Thus the “quotable in law”, is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority. - Petition against an order of Single Judge passed in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Indi Writ petition under Art. 226 can not be entertained against a private individual in private dispute where no government or like authority is respondent as no relief is claimed against it or unless there is infraction of any statutory provisions or private individual is acting in collusion with statutory authority. It nowhere lays down that in no case writ of certiorari can be issued by High Court to Court or Tribunal subordinate to it. It also does not declare that in a dispute between landlord and tenant, article 226 can never be invoked or writ can not be issued. The writ of certiorari can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution where the subordinate Court or Tribunal commits an error of jurisdiction. Where the subordinate Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it or fails to exercise jurisdiction, that error of jurisdiction can be corrected. Where the facts justify the invocation of either Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution to correct a jurisdictional error or an error resulting in a miscarriage of justice committed by authorities subordinate to this Court, there is no reason or justification to deprive a party of the right to invoke the constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is open to the Court while dealing with a petition filed under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution or a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arising from the judgment in such a petition to determine whether the facts justify the party in filing the petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution. No inconsistency in law as laid down in Shalini Shyam Shetty .vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil and M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax.
|