Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2009 (7) TMI HC This
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the maintainability of a Writ Petition against a Co-operative Society under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the violation of fundamental rights, and the availability of alternative remedies for the petitioner. Judgment Details: Issue 1: Maintainability of Writ Petition The Writ Petition sought repayment of a deposit made with a Co-operative Society. The appellant contended that the Society is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. However, the Court held that since the duty of the appellant to repay the deposit is a public duty, a writ of mandamus can be issued under Article 226 to ensure the performance of this duty. The Court referred to relevant case law establishing that a private entity discharging a public duty can be subject to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. Issue 2: Violation of Fundamental Rights The appellant argued that the Writ Petition should not have been entertained as no fundamental right of the petitioner was violated. However, the Court disagreed, citing a decision that a Writ Petition can be maintained to enforce legal rights against entities within the Court's writ jurisdiction, not limited to fundamental rights enforcement under Article 32. The Court found that the duty to repay the deposit was a legal right that could be enforced through a writ. Issue 3: Availability of Alternative Remedy The appellant contended that the petitioner should have pursued alternative remedies available under Section 69 of the Act. The Court noted that once the Single Judge exercised discretion in favor of the petitioner, interference in appeal is only warranted if the exercise of discretion was arbitrary or perverse. The Court found no such arbitrariness in the Single Judge's decision to grant relief through the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. In conclusion, the Writ Appeal challenging the decision of the Single Judge was dismissed, affirming the direction for the appellant to repay the deposit along with interest.
|