9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1995 (11) TMI 381 - SC - Indian LawsWhether extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was improperly invoked? Held that - The 1st respondent was unjustified in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without first showing cause against Annexure Ext. P-4 before the 3rd respondent. The appropriate procedure for the 1st respondent would have been to file his objections and place necessary materials before the 3rd respondent and invite a decision as to whether the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent under Section 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982, are justified and appropriate. The adjudication in that behalf necessarily involves disputed questions of fact which require investigation. In such a case, proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution can hardly be an appropriate remedy. The High Court committed a grave error in entertaining the Writ Petition and in allowing the same by quashing Annexure Ext. P-4 and also the Eviction proceedings No. 6/92, without proper and fair investigation of the basic facts. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court of Patna in CWJC NO. 82/93 dated 10.2.1993. We hereby do so. The appeal is allowed with costs.
Issues:
1. Improper invocation of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court. 2. Validity of the show-cause notice issued under Section 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982. 3. Jurisdiction of the competent authority to initiate eviction proceedings. 4. Disputed ownership and tenancy status of the building in question. 5. Applicability of alternate remedies before invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: 1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the High Court's improper invocation of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the High Court erred in allowing the Writ Petition without the 1st respondent first showing cause against the show-cause notice issued by the competent authority. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of following the appropriate procedure before resorting to extraordinary remedies. 2. The Court examined the validity of the show-cause notice issued under Section 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982. The notice was challenged by the 1st respondent without presenting objections before the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that the proper course of action for the 1st respondent would have been to address the notice before seeking judicial intervention. 3. The jurisdiction of the competent authority to initiate eviction proceedings was a crucial aspect of the case. The Court emphasized that the 3rd respondent, as the competent authority, had the power to proceed with the eviction if the basic facts of ownership and tenancy were not disputed. The disputed facts required adjudication by the competent authority rather than immediate judicial intervention. 4. The issue of disputed ownership and tenancy status of the building in question was central to the case. The Court highlighted the conflicting claims regarding ownership between the Board and the 4th respondent. The determination of these disputed facts was deemed essential before any further legal actions could be taken. 5. The Supreme Court discussed the importance of exhausting alternate remedies before invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that in cases where no fundamental rights were infringed, and no jurisdictional issues were evident, parties should first address objections before the relevant authority before approaching the court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and emphasizing the importance of following the proper procedure, exhausting alternate remedies, and adjudicating disputed facts before seeking judicial intervention in matters involving statutory authorities and show-cause notices.
|
