9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Rejection of writs of mandamus and certiorari under article 226 of the Constitution - Legality of seizures of goods by police in Himachal Pradesh - Jurisdictional authority for seizures and infringement of fundamental rights - Application of Criminal Procedure Code and availability of alternative remedies Analysis: The Supreme Court heard two connected appeals challenging the rejection of writs of mandamus and certiorari under article 226 of the Constitution by the Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh. The appeals arose from disputes regarding the ownership and possession of a business in Himachal Pradesh involving partners from Jammu and Kashmir. The Judicial Commissioner refused the reliefs sought, emphasizing the need for detailed examination through cross-examination of witnesses to ascertain the truth of the claims made. The Commissioner suggested pursuing alternative remedies such as a civil suit instead of article 226 petitions. The central issue revolved around the legality of the seizures of goods by the police in Himachal Pradesh. The Supreme Court found that the seizures were conducted without proper authority or legal basis. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure cited by the Solicitor-General did not apply to the circumstances of the case. The Court highlighted the lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularities in the actions of the police, concluding that the seizures infringed upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner under the Constitution. Regarding the jurisdictional authority for the seizures and the infringement of fundamental rights, the Court emphasized that the actions of the police in seizing the goods without proper legal authorization amounted to a violation of the petitioner's rights under article 19 and article 31 of the Constitution. The Court held that the police's actions were unlawful and could not be justified under any legal authority, necessitating the grant of relief under article 226 of the Constitution. In considering the application of the Criminal Procedure Code and the availability of alternative remedies, the Court rejected arguments that alternative remedies such as a petition under section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code precluded the use of article 226. The Court clarified that the provisions of section 523 did not apply to the case, and the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to address the issues at hand. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Judicial Commissioner's order, and directed the restoration of the seized goods to the petitioner, emphasizing the infringement of fundamental rights and the lack of legal authority for the seizures. The appellant was awarded costs for the appeals and those incurred in the Court of Judicial Commissioner.
|
