High Courts Are Not Precluded from Entertaining Writ Petitions Even If There Are Disputed Questions of Facts: SC - Synopsis
Dilpreet Singh 21 Feb 2020

POPATRAO VYANKATRAO PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (CIVIL APPEAL No. 1600 OF 2020)

 

The Supreme Court has observed that a High Court is not precluded from entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even if there are disputed questions of fact which falls for consideration but if they do not require elaborate evidence to be adduced.

The bench of CJI SA Bobde, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant had considered an appeal against a judgment of the Bombay High Court which refused to entertain a writ petition on the ground that it involved factual matters. The writ petitioner's case was that despite the fact that he was the highest bidder and despite the fact that he deposited the entire amount of the sale, since the possession of the sand block was not granted to him for reasons not due to him and he was unable to excavate the sand, he was entitled to receive refund of the amount deposited by him.

When considering this appeal, the bench observed that it would usually be slow for the High Court to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where a petition includes contested questions of fact and rule. But it is a rule of self­-restraint and not a hard and fast rule, it said.

The Court also makes reference to “ABL International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd." (Appeal (civil) 5409 of 1998), observed:

Even if there are disputed questions of fact which fall for consideration but if they do not require elaborate evidence to be adduced, the High Court is not precluded from entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, such a plenary power has to be exercised by the High Court in exceptional circumstances. The High Court would be justified in exercising such a power to the exclusion of other available remedies only when it finds that the action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable and, as such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the present case, the bench said there is hardly any question of fact in dispute. The authorities conduct, in refusing the repayment of the appellant's amount, when they themselves had failed to give possession of the sand block and as a consequence of which the appellant was unable to excavate the sand, would smack of arbitrariness, the bench said, while allowing the petition for writ.

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.