Nature of
grievance:
Where the Court
/ Tribunal / Quasi judicial body / administrative authority discharging
judicial function, have passed an Order without following the procedure / or in
breach of the procedure established under the law; or have passed an Order
without affording opportunity of hearing, or opportunity of hearing
contemplated under the law;
Writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, including powers of superintendence
of High Courts recognized under Article 227 of the Constitution, may be invoked
in such cases.
There had always
been confusion amongst the lawyers as whilst challenging the Orders passed by
Civil Courts, Criminal Courts, Tribunals and quasi Judicial bodies, whether
Writ jurisdiction is to be invoked under Article 226 or Supervisory
jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 is to be invoked. The judgment of
Apex court in the case of Radhey Shyam Versus Chhabi Nath [2015] appears to
have settled this controversy. The essence of the judgment is, all Orders
passed by Civil and Criminal Courts may only be challenged under Art.227 of the
Constitution and not under Article 226. And, all Orders passed by Tribunals or
by any other Quasi judicial bodies may be challenged under Article 226, or
preferably may be under Revisional Jurisdiction of High Courts under Section
115 of CPC, 1908.
Reliefs prayed for:
[As may be applicable to facts of the case]
a)
That the impugned Order / action at Exhibit “____” to the Petition be
quashed and set aside;
b)
All actions, if any, emanating from impugned Order / action be declared
null and void;
c)
The Respondent authority be directed to pass speaking and reasoned order,
and strictly in accordance with law;
d)
(Where hearing is contemplated under the law) The Respondent authority be
directed to grant personal hearing to the Petitioners, as contemplated under
the law, and pass, a speaking and reasoned order.
e)
The Hon’ble Court may dispose of the Petition, without touching upon the
merits of the case;
f)
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
[As may be applicable to facts of the case]
a)
That, the impugned Order / action is contrary to law of the land, in
force;
b)
That, the impugned Order was passed without complying to essential
requirements of provisions of law;
c)
That, the impugned Order was passed without following the procedure established
under the law;
d)
That there is complete misreading / misunderstanding of the express
mandate of law / law declared in HC / SC Rulings, in the impugned Order;
e)
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.
The Petitioners would submit that it is the concern of the Writ Courts that Subordinate
Courts and Tribunals
act within the limits of their respective jurisdiction.
f)
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.
g)
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, and depending upon the grounds on which the Petition is
founded, are:
The ground: That the impugned Order was passed
without following the procedure established under the law, the required
averments:
1. The Procedure, which
is established under the relevant law, and which is to be followed, before
passing of impugned Order:
2.
The procedure, if any, which is followed in the instant case whilst
passing of impugned Order:
3.
The submissions made before the Court / Tribunal / Quasi judicial body /
administrative authority discharging judicial function, before passing of
impugned Order; and the substance of the said submissions:
The grounds: That the impugned Order was passed
without affording opportunity of hearing / opportunity of hearing contemplated
under the law; the averments:
1. The Procedure, which
is established under the law, which requires that personal hearing should be
given before passing of impugned Order:
2.
The procedure, if any, which is followed in the instant case whilst
passing of impugned Order:
3.
The prejudice which has caused due to non furnishing of opportunity of
hearing before passing of Orders:
4.
Demonstrate that no prejudice would have caused to anyone if opportunity
of hearing was granted:
5.
The submissions made before the Court / Tribunal / Quasi judicial body /
administrative authority discharging judicial function, before passing of
impugned Order; and the substance of the said submissions:
Please
find updated draft at:
https://www.litigationplatform.com/
Important Links
Comments
Post a Comment