https://www.litigationplatform.com/Judgment/Index/b509638e-bc1b-48f3-9e6d-56b868d1e079
Nature of
grievance:
Where the Govt.
/ Administrative / Statutory authorities, in the purported exercise of their
powers, sought to make acquisition or requisition of private immovable
property, however, without complying with the requirements of law, or without
duly following the procedure established under the law, for such acquisitions
or requisitions. Therefore, Writ proceedings may be initiated for the limited
purpose of directing the concerned State Agency to act in strict accordance
with law.
Reliefs prayed for:
[As may be
applicable to facts of the case]
a)
The
Respondent authority be directed to act or to take action in the Petitioners’
case, strictly in accordance with law (specify
the provision of law);
b)
(Where
hearing is contemplated under the law) The Respondent authority be directed to
grant personal hearing to the Petitioners, as contemplated under the law (specify the provision of law), and pass
speaking and reasoned order.
c) That the impugned Order /
action at Exhibit “____” to the Petition be quashed and set aside;
d) All actions / consequences,
if any, emanating from impugned Order / action be set aside or be declared null
and void;
e) That the Hon’ble Court may pleased to dispose of the Petition, without
touching upon the merits of the case, to the limited extent, directing
Respondent No.2 to pass speaking and reasoned order, to the representation made
before it dated ____ by the Petitioners; whilst taking into consideration the
relevant facts and law in force;
f)
The
Respondent No.2 be directed to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings against
Respondent No.1 for their wilfully disregarding the express mandate of law,
and, for their wilfully disregarding the Order / Judgment of this Hon’ble Court
expressly brought to their knowledge; constituting
grave Misconduct;
g)
The
Hon’ble Court may pleased to initiate Su Moto contempt proceedings against
Respondent No.1 for their wilfully disregarding the Order / Judgment of this
Hon’ble Court expressly brought to their knowledge;
h) Pending the
hearing and final disposal of the Petition, be pleased to direct Respondent
No.1 to obtain Legal opinion from the Advocate General / Solicitor General /
Attorney General, in the backdrop of issue of large public importance is
involved; and so as to avoid future litigation on the same issue;
i) Any other relief
as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and expedient, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
Grounds for Reliefs
Such exercise of powers may be impugned / challenged on the
premise, as may be applicable to the facts of the case, –
a) Breach of
substantive provision of law: That the
impugned action / Order was passed in disregard of substantive and specific
provision of law, which has immediate bearing on the controversy at hand; or
that the impugned actions are contrary to law of the land, in force; or that
the impugned action was taken without complying to essential requirements of
provisions of law, under which the action was taken; or that the said exercise
of powers was without any legal basis;
(specify the provision of law)
b) Procedure
established under the law not followed: That, the
impugned action was taken without following the procedure established under the
law(specify the provision of law);
c)
Frustration of
principles of natural justice: That the impugned action / Order was
passed, (i) without following the procedure established under the law; or (ii)
without considering the material facts of the case, or that, finding of fact is
arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into
consideration irrelevant material; the
applicable law; and no reasons were assigned in the impugned action / Order as
to the applicability or the non applicability of the applicable law; which is
akin to frustration of principles of natural justice; or whereas the impugned action has caused
serious prejudice to the Petitioner’s business interests, the powers were
exercised without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner;
(Legitimate expectation)
d) Jurisdictional
error: Want of Jurisdiction: That the Respondent authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the subject
matter of the case and pass Order / take action; Mistake of jurisdiction: That the condition precedents, for the
exercise of powers were not complied with; Excess of jurisdiction: That the
impugned action are such which the Respondent Authority were incompetent to
act;
e) Misreading of
law / precedent: That there is deliberate misreading of the express
mandate of law / law declared in HC / SC Rulings; or the issue which is raised
in this Petition is unambiguously and categorically decided by various decisions
of this Hon’ble Court / Apex court, stated hereinbefore; and whereas the said
decisions were expressly brought to the knowledge of the Respondent No.1
herein, yet Respondent No.1 acted contrary to the law so laid down (specify the provision of law and the relevant
judgment);
f) Arbitrariness: Such exercise of powers becomes Arbitrary; Malice in law, inevitably
resulting in frustration of mandate of equality before law and equal protection
of laws, enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
g) Wednesbury principle: That the
impugned action / Order defies logic, and is such which no person /
decision-maker, on the material before him and within the framework of the law,
would ever take; and the impugned Order / action would shocks the conscience of
the Court; or that the powers were
exercised without any material on record, warranting exercise of such action;
The actions of the Respondent Authority is akin to
say that being an holder of authority and powers, we may so act as to give an
feeling that we are acting within our powers but in reality we may be acting
beyond our powers;
The actions of the Authority is akin to say that as
a holder of authority and powers, we may act in this manner or in that manner.
The only good reason which we can give for acting in this manner or in that
manner, is that we wish to act, in this or that manner.
h)
The Petitioners
cannot be relegated to Appeal u/s ______ of ____ Act, ___, for want of Order /
absence of reasoned Order: In the absence of reasoned Order, the Appellate
Authority / Court would not be in a position to uphold or set aside the
findings of fact arrived at by the Respondents.
i) No prejudice to
Respondent if Reliefs prayed for, are granted: That, considering the very limited nature of relief prayed, no prejudice
of any nature would cause to the Respondents, if the Court grants relief in
terms of prayer clause (___) even without hearing the Respondents at length.
j) Exercise of Writ
jurisdiction: Whereas the Hon’ble Apex Court have time and again
said that even if an alternative remedy is available to an aggrieved party,
Writ jurisdiction should be exercised by High Courts in cases (i) where the
Writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where
there is failure of principles of natural justice or (iii) where the orders or
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged. [M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd Versus Jahan
Khan; Whirpool Corporation V/s. Registrar of Trade Marks; Harbanslal Sahnia
& Anr. V/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.; State of H.P. V/s.
Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd; Sanjana M. Wig V/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Ltd; Satwati Deswal Versus State Of Haryana.]
Material facts of the case:
The Petitioners, most respectfully
submit that, having regard to the nature of reliefs prayed for in this
Petition, the following facts become germane to the controversy herein; And,
the reasonable satisfaction of the existence or the non existence, as the case
may be, of these facts, may entitle the Petitioners the judgment in their
favour.
The chronology / chain of events,
which has led to the present situation, and has constrained the Petitioners to
seek certain Reliefs from this Hon’ble Court. In the chronology / chain of
events, the following facts should be set out in clear terms, at appropriate
juncture.
The required averments, as may be
applicable to the facts of the case, are:
1. The nature of impugned action:
2. The law under which the
powers were exercised:
3. The purport and mandate of
aforesaid law:
4. The condition precedent,
which the law lays down, before the exercise of such powers:
5. The absence of such
conditions in the instant case:
6. The procedure which is
contemplated under the law, before the exercise of such powers:
7. The procedure which is
followed in the instant case at hand:
8. The representation made
before the concerned Authority, before impugned action; and the substance of
the said representation, and Reply received if any:
9. The materials which were
placed on record, before powers were exercised at the prejudice of the
Petitioner:
10. Demonstrate that the
concerned Authority has completely misread / misunderstood the express mandate
of law / law declared in HC / SC Rulings; or demonstrate that relevant
judgments of HC / SC, which were cited, were not considered at all.
Important Links
Legal issues !!
If you are facing any of these issues like (a) Recovery of Moneys (b) Immovable property disputes (c) grievances against Municipalities & Govts., including challenge to legitimacy of laws etc. (d) grievances against illegalities and highhandedness of Police like illegal arrests, refusal to register FIR, deliberately flawed investigations, etc (e) False FIRs (f) False Claims (g) False evidences (h) Grievances against Judges (i) Illegal or perverse Orders of the Courts / Tribunals, among others.
or
If you are looking for draft of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the nature and attribute of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the procedure followed in any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the grounds on which any order of the court / tribunal is challenged; or if you are facing any frivolous litigation.
https://www.litigationplatform.com/
Thank you.
Comments
Post a Comment