1995 (8) TMI 342 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition as a Criminal Writ Petition.
2. Classification of writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Nature of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution-whether civil or criminal.
4. Appropriate classification and registration of writ petitions by the Registry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the writ petition as a Criminal Writ Petition:
The objection raised by the respondent's counsel questioned the maintainability of the writ petition as a Criminal Writ Petition on the grounds that the reliefs sought pertained to the enforcement of civil rights. The court examined the nature of the reliefs sought by the petitioner, which included a writ of mandamus to prevent interference in their lawful business and an injunction against raids and seizures. The court concluded that the petitioner was seeking to enforce civil rights, making the proceedings civil in nature. Consequently, the writ petition was not properly styled as a Criminal Writ Petition and needed to be reclassified as a Civil Writ Petition.

2. Classification of writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India:
The court discussed the provisions of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, which regulate the business of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227. The rules classify certain writ petitions as criminal, such as those challenging orders under the Criminal Procedure Code, but do not provide a clear distinction between civil and criminal writ petitions. The court noted the confusion arising from the lack of clear classification and emphasized that the nature of the relief sought and the grounds for such relief should determine whether a writ proceeding is civil or criminal.

3. Nature of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution-whether civil or criminal:
The court referred to various judgments to explain the nature of proceedings under Article 226. It highlighted that civil proceedings involve the enforcement of civil rights, while criminal proceedings aim at punishment for crimes. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in I.S.A. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, which stated that civil proceedings cover all proceedings where a party asserts a civil right and claims relief for its breach. The court concluded that the nature of the proceeding under Article 226 depends on the right violated and the relief sought, not the form or mode of enforcement.

4. Appropriate classification and registration of writ petitions by the Registry:
The court directed the Registrar to implement specific measures to ensure proper classification and registration of writ petitions:
- Every petition/application under Articles 226 and 227 should be styled as either 'Civil Writ Petition' or 'Criminal Writ Petition.'
- Such petitions/applications should be accompanied by a certificate from the counsel or petitioner indicating the correct classification.
- The Registry should examine the nature of the relief claimed and raise objections if the petition is wrongly styled.
- Civil Writ Petitions should be registered under a separate title, "Civil Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India."
- Criminal Writ Petitions should be registered under the head "Applications under the Constitution" as per the Appellate Side Rules.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the present writ petition, seeking to enforce civil rights, was improperly styled as a Criminal Writ Petition. The petitioner was permitted to amend the petition to classify it correctly as a Civil Writ Petition within two weeks. The Registry was directed to register the amended petition appropriately and place it before the suitable Bench for consideration. The court's detailed analysis emphasized the importance of correctly classifying writ petitions to avoid procedural confusion and ensure justice.