While Exercising Supervisory Jurisdiction Over Private Dispute, Power Under Article 226 Of Constitution Cannot Be Invoked: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court observed that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction in the matter of dispute between the private parties, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be invoked.
The Court was hearing a petition against the suo motu cognizance taken by the single judge.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed, “…while exercising supervisory jurisdiction in the matter of dispute between the private parties, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be invoked in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423”
Brief Facts-
Nizamuddin challenged the Municipal Corporation and private respondents over the rejection of his temporary injunction application and dismissal of an appeal. A Single Judge assumed writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, which Nizamuddin contested through a Special Appeal. An interim order questioned whether Article 226 could be invoked for a civil court order in a petition under Article 227, and stayed proceedings under Article 226. Subsequently, while this interim order was in effect, a suo motu cognizance order was also challenged, leading to the registration of a Petition titled Suo Motu Vs. Jaipur Development Authority.
The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 and quoted, “Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226.”
The Court noted that the invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in law.
The Court, therefore, set aside both orders.
Consequently, the Court allowed the Special Leave (Writ).
Cause Title: Suo Motu v. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:24057-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Adv. Ajeet Kumar Bhandari, Adv. Jitendra Mishra and Adv. Sunil Samdaria
Respondent: AAG G.S. Gill, Adv. Shikha Sharma, Adv. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Aslam Khan, Adv. Yuvraj Samant and Adv. Abhijeet Panchariya
