9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 vs. High Courts under Article 226. Analysis: The petitioners sought a writ to quash an order fixing the rateable value of their property and demanding arrears of taxes. The Supreme Court, after hearing both parties, decided that the case should be disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits, allowing the petitioners to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court highlighted that the powers of High Courts under Article 226 are broader than those of the Supreme Court under Article 32. It emphasized that relief sought in the petition could be granted by the High Court, and dissatisfaction with the High Court's decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court also pointed out that the High Courts have eminent judges and legal practitioners with expertise in various areas, making it more convenient, cost-effective, and time-saving for cases to be heard at the High Court level. The Supreme Court expressed concerns about its current workload and the need to prioritize cases that are exclusively within its jurisdiction. It emphasized the importance of preserving the dignity, efficiency, and capacity of the High Courts by allowing them to handle matters that fall within their purview. In conclusion, the Supreme Court decided to dispose of the petition without delving into the merits of the case, advising the petitioners to seek redressal through the High Court under Article 226. The Court underscored the importance of respecting the jurisdictional boundaries between the Supreme Court and the High Courts, ensuring efficient judicial administration and timely resolution of legal disputes.
|
