9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 1012 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while setting aside the order dated 15.04.2008 passed by the Nazul Officer in a writ petition when an alternative remedy is available to respondent no. 1 to challenge the said order before the Collector as per Section 18 of the Revenue Book Circular? Whether the High Court is justified in directing the Nazul Officer to present personally to explain his misconduct ?
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Justification of the High Court's direction for the Nazul Officer to explain his "misconduct". Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226: The first issue pertains to whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by setting aside the order dated 15.04.2008 passed by the Nazul Officer, considering that an alternative remedy was available to the respondent under Section 18 of the Revenue Book Circular. The Supreme Court noted that the Nazul Officer's decision to reject the NOC application was based on the respondent's failure to provide necessary documents and information. The respondent had the option to appeal to the Collector under Section 18 of the Revenue Book Circular, which provides a structured mechanism for addressing grievances related to government land. The Court emphasized that judicial prudence demands refraining from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 when an adequate alternative remedy is available. The Court referred to previous judgments, including *Punjab National Bank vs. O.C. Krishnan & Ors.* and *State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Anr.*, to highlight that the existence of an alternative remedy should generally preclude the High Court from intervening directly under Article 226. The principle of separation of powers dictates that the appellate authority, in this case, the Collector, should be allowed to address the issues raised by the respondent. 2. Justification of the High Court's Direction for the Nazul Officer to Explain His "Misconduct": The second issue concerns whether the High Court was justified in directing the Nazul Officer to personally appear and explain his "misconduct" in the context of the contempt petition filed by the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing such a direction. It reiterated that when a matter is remitted to the original authority, the authority must be allowed to make a decision based on statutory provisions, rules, and regulations. The High Court's interference in this process, especially by summoning the officer to explain his actions, was deemed inappropriate. The Court underscored that any perceived errors in the Nazul Officer's decision should be addressed through the appropriate appellate mechanism, i.e., an appeal to the Collector, rather than through contempt proceedings or personal summons. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders dated 26.09.2008 and 13.10.2009. It clarified that if the matter is still pending with the Nazul Officer, he should proceed in accordance with the High Court's earlier directions and relevant government rules and regulations. If the Nazul Officer has already concluded the matter and the respondent is aggrieved, they are free to appeal under Section 18 of the Revenue Book Circular, and the Collector should then address the appeal in accordance with the law. Both appeals were allowed, with no order as to costs.
|
