1961 (3) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ncial Commissioner. Let notice for actual date go to the Financial Commissioner so that he may, if he so desires, file a written statement. As the question of competency or the desirability of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on behalf of the State against one of its own officers is of some importance, it is, in my view, a fit case to be heard and disposed of by a larger Bench. I would accordingly direct that the papers be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench, if thought fit. In pursuance of the abovesaid order of reference the case came on for hearing before the Division Bench consisting of Inder Dev Dua and Mahajan, JJ., and the Court made the following order: M.R. Sharma, for Advocate-Ge .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... exercise of its discretionary powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution interfere with the impugned order of the Financial Commissioner, nevertheless our attention at the Bar has been drawn to section 22 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (46 of 1948), which provides for a reference to the High Court of any question of law arising out of an order passed under section 21 of the above Act. We have also been referred to section 22 of the Pepsu General Sales Tax Ordinance (33 of 2006 Bk.), which contains similar provisions for a reference to the High Court. The contractor-firm, respondent No. 1, has, however, pleaded in the written statement that the present writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay without furnishing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of law, refuse to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, merely because of the existence of an alternative remedy prescribed, but it is certainly a relevant factor to be taken into account. It is only in cases where the fundamental right of a citizen is violated by a glaringly and manifestly illegal act that the Court may choose to exercise its discretion in defence of such a fundamental right, any efficacious alternative remedy notwithstanding. But in the present case, the State being the petitioner such a consideration can hardly arise. The objection on the score of undue delay and laches is also not unsubstantial and in the absence of any valid and cogent explanation, this Court would be disinclined to exercise its d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X