9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Refusal to grant a new license for a sawmill based on court orders; Challenge to the authority of court orders; Misconception in filing a writ petition under Article 32.
Refusal to grant license based on court orders: The petitioners challenged the refusal to grant a new license for a sawmill based on court orders issued in previous writ petitions. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the authority was not bound by the court orders as they were considered "ad hoc orders." However, the court emphasized the mandate of Article 144 of the Constitution read with Article 141, indicating the binding nature of court orders. Challenge to the authority of court orders: The petitioners contended that the court order of March 4, 1997, did not fall within the purview of relevant laws and questioned the authority of the Supreme Court to pass such orders. They argued that the court could not infringe on fundamental rights without proper legislative backing and that passing orders in public interest litigation could not amend constitutional provisions without the specified procedure under Article 368. Misconception in filing a writ petition under Article 32: After hearing the arguments, the court found the petition to be misconceived and based on a total misconception. It was deemed an attempt to question the correctness of court orders through a writ petition under Article 32, which was not permissible. The court considered the filing of such a petition as an abuse of the court process and a waste of time, dismissing the petition with costs amounting to Rs. 10,000 to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.
|
