1987 (11) TMI 157 - SC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Writ petition for quashing property tax assessment order and bill. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32 vs. High Court under Article 226. Convenience, efficiency, and capacity of High Courts.

Analysis:
The petitioners filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash a property tax assessment order and bill issued by the Deputy Assessor and Collector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioners requested a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order to set aside the order fixing the rateable value of their property and the demand for arrears. The first petitioner is a shareholder and company secretary of a hotel company, while the second petitioner is the hotel company itself. The Court adjourned the case to hear arguments on whether the petition should be decided under Article 32 of the Constitution or if the petitioners should approach the High Court under Article 226.

The Court decided to dispose of the petition without expressing any opinion on the merits, allowing the petitioners to file a petition before the High Court under Article 226. The Court highlighted that the powers of High Courts under Article 226 are broader than those of the Supreme Court under Article 32. It emphasized that the relief sought in the petition could be granted by the High Court, and parties dissatisfied with the High Court's decision could appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court stressed that bypassing the High Court to directly approach the Supreme Court was not justified, especially when a similar legal issue was pending in the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the High Courts have eminent judges, necessary skills, and enthusiasm to handle various cases efficiently. The High Courts, with their traditions and experienced legal practitioners, are well-equipped to deal with matters within their jurisdiction. The Court highlighted the importance of reducing the burden on the Supreme Court by allowing High Courts to adjudicate cases that fall under their purview. It emphasized the need to preserve the dignity, majesty, and efficiency of the High Courts by not undermining their capacity through unnecessary interference by the Supreme Court.

The Court also pointed out the backlog of cases in the Supreme Court and the time-consuming nature of acting as an original court. By encouraging litigants to approach the High Courts first, the Supreme Court could focus on resolving longstanding cases and utilizing its resources effectively. The order was passed based on considerations of convenience, efficiency, and the optimal utilization of judicial resources.