Mr H J Siwani vs The Union Of India on 12 June, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Mr H J Siwani vs The Union Of India on 12 June, 2009

Equivalent citations: 2010 (1) AIR KANT HCR 533, 2010 A I H C 1502, AIR 2010 (NOC) (SUPP) 1077 (KAR.), (2010) 2 ICC 136, (2010) 1 KANT LJ 648, 2010 (1) KCCR SN 8 (KAR)

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

IN THE HIGH com? or :<A2NAm<A AT 3;a1:§5Ai;{§aé2%% =

QATED THIS THE12m DJ:!'2f»~(?.f'éJ{..?f§ié ;   A x

BEFORE  T * 

THE HONBLE as.R.Jus*rzcE :.A§3:~%msw§r¢f»€%i\i}a§c:L;t>A:2 k

war'? Enngga Na,¢9amm7 {LA;s2t_5_§)

BETWEEN:

1.

s§.._L 1 Ageci abcsut *f¥€$f§=j;:a:~s _ ~ V . S/o lath J,:s';;. Siwani "

2, mm;

fagied. abozﬁ, -% 4.. 'A - .,.. __ Si<:f?A_f;a~i;:_J;§{_.

Beth .};z;.:=;1x:::;.1s;

Read ' _~' ?ii.a1;g;aEQ re-S6'£3« . . Peaﬁeners ' ,8:-é,£..i3h;iJjf£é::z,_£€ for Kumar 3:, Kumar, Advs.,) ;a-5&3';

:. 9i'1:e um cnfmﬁia Minisﬁy ef Shi§;';ing 'A : 293$' Tmnspert 3:; Highways < _ V. _ Digtparment of Reaci Tmnspcﬁ SS Highway, Haw D£:":§I1:i-Q};.. T " The Assistant Lbmmssioner 8:. iiamptﬁtaeat Qﬁicer

- 3- the enactments enacted by the State Le@'sLs1f"au'e er by the Central Legislature.

Section 34) 0f the Naijenal Act, reads thus:--

*section3D.--(1):¢c§;§:x 3 ' Bf?) made by the Central

-.u7:der sub-section(1) shall _ ; ''_.nai''.be in any court or .... _ " Qther.aut?'zor*ity.' me to High Court under Artiste 226 is ..:aij;1'e}.'t1~21o1V4&ég1a1'y power not only to correct the mahifesi

--Ver1**er,.%i:n,;f;--.a_1so to exercise it for sake of jtzstice. Uxzder H '- of the Constitution, a High Court is the for purposes of exercising civil, appellate, n 'T 01* even constitutional jurisdiction so far that eitate is eoncemed. The _§urisdiction under Articiee 226 -9- and 227 of the Consﬁtution is an extra<)r§iér1ar3I jurisdiction conferred on the High Court to ens13:?§:._Tt'2}at the subordinate authorities act not only with iaw, but they also I'unctien.wii£hjn "01"; V' ' iaw. The jurisdiction of the gasses away by the legislation. me ilaign <;;om<ts;1:'s1c1sr ms % Constitution is a form? fOIﬁ.~Gﬁ£0 f¢éI}}fint «'o:i'vI71zr1;iamenta1 right of a citizen, the power to entertain a that the State machixaerﬁ and was acting in vioJafi_Qn._ guarzmtee. Rather the High sssssas duty and responsibility to, théi: Sfatc machinexy was acting fairly and » ixoi; on extijaﬂcous considerations. it itﬂevant to not: in this context that the Apex the case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar (Ragd) Sindri 83 others as. Union of India 3» .._..§:ther's, reported in AIR 1981 so 344, While W -33- censidering the distinction between Art,icles 32 an_d'___22€a of the Constitution, has O¥C)$€i'V€d must-

"1o. Articie 3:; of ti}; {:ons~,::§t§j§1;j;:.:i:

which guarantees by "H16 to move the '~by.

appropriate enforcement '_ of coiﬁ'ei9r§d Part Hi, pmvities <;1:§av1js_e,v?;é2}%that:"A H ( 'The Siuprtrime to €_1';s"§t.ié or A %[¢:§ie:s 4o:~ttj;».%r::ts'%;t ixftchidmg writs ~ ._ Q;-in téftthébeas corpus, ~ ' gdrotxibition, quo ' ~ and certiorazi, u" : may be appropriate, _ A' f(ﬁ'iii€:'er1Ibr0cment of any of the conferred by this Part.' V manifest that the jurisdiction * conferred 911 this Ceurt by Articie 32 can be exercised for the enforcemcnt of the rights conferred by Part 111 and for no other purpose. Clause (1) as well as clause (2) of Article 82 bring out this' point in sharp focus. As contrasted' ' V with Article 32, Artricie 226(1) L. ..}i.

Constitution provides that; 'Nonvithsmnding aniftfiing svifi A .. 1

-r Article 3'2 every Co:_11't sI1.é£1 have power athe te:1'itoI'ies"'i;iTrei:3Lti%{>1T1 it exercises }1.11fiAsdictici_n,*"to isfsyue to _ ' pe=rsc3n~ "ore ..au§§iI1oI'ity, V. "ap:irep;ii;zte cases, ' * T. " xfﬁevem-meﬁt, xiséithin those ' terrii;£>r'ies'V"-s.d'izection, orders or

-writs, . 'me1:1di§1g writs in the 'V xséytme 0}' habeas corpus, A. maﬁéaiﬁus, prohibition, qua fémr'1*a11to and eertiomri, er any 'ftkxem, for the enforcement sf' any of the rights conferred by 1~'arI: is and for any other ptirpose.'

-;*g-

The difference in the yhrasecxlogy of the T T two Articies brings out the markecf'we-V 'v difference in the natme and " "

the right eonfermd by these Az~e<.:ij¢s. A Whereas the right ' 32 can be exercised for {ﬁe 2 V' of fundamental conferred by % " be} exercised not enly .f( )1j_ of fundamental ':bi1t__ other F'I*Q:n_ ti:e:"aE2{;_j(e,»_,_it right of the High {hurt under of the Constitution is not only for e1ii1:)1{*een{e11i;'~Qf° féiizdamentai rights, but also any p;1rpeSe«a_:;dvwhereas the right guaranteed bj?--Ar§iCie. T3~Q§4'cna;2'é:'be_exercised by the Supreme Court for ' V ' ' __ enI'o:ee1:ient efv-fuzidamentai rights. '.1'h_e jﬁriedicﬁon eenierred on this Court by Artieies "A.«'§i1'Is'i--A"'iZ'27 of the Constitution of India, it is an fx/\ ..j§-

that the judiciary wouid be capable of eﬁecti%§fe§.y discharging its vide powers of judicial review'; ;'..j._'_':l"ie%_. ' Su reme (Jourt has aiwavs considered the.. .: , Wet. cf' ' "

P » P0} . _ judicial review vested in the .' Supreme Court under Articles .326 .9.-i.:..1_<:i" 32 enabiing iegsiative/exeezjtive uﬁto to the scrutiny of to our constitutional scheme. that the power of ieiiecutive action is needed f " V Art.icle 226 of the Constiteriion' essential feature of the (3onstitutiei;5._4 eo11é'§ti.t1;1?jr;g;_".;;>arts of its basic structure. . _ V" "infLerpi*e'iiiig the similar sectien, the H.113 High Court in the case of Shripatrao Eéﬁatge 83 another as. The State of Jig,-.1 3. another, reported in AIR 1977 384 has opined that in the absence of any VT "d»eﬁzﬁﬁen of the word "iﬁouxts" in the Censtitutien, it -15- shouid be taken as its ordinary meaning to inch.:de (a) Civii and Crimixaal Ceurts under Civil Courts Act; Criminai pracedure Code and the: like and ~ Tribunals as exercise the s9vereig1»ju§4iciai.i§§V§9%€:r 6f.i}i*;e 'A V' State and render definitive jud@»,eri'f'._'s" 'in thereof.

i fully ccmcur Wiﬂ:1__the: of Athe 'Bom bay High Court. The word itQV1 Sf3CﬁOI1 3-1.) of the National 'Supra, refers to Courts, and the same wili not incliidcé the the Supreme Court. " View {if above, this Court is of the clear 's11_b--section (4) of Section 3-1) will not be ﬁp;§iicaE§lc:§_"_t0 Courts and the Apex Court of the

-V C0u:.i?.1fy';--V_V'l'I1'§ words "any ijnurt" used in sub«~sec£ion (4) "'V.jo1"&3::-xjzticvaix 3'1) of the Act will {mt be appﬁcable to the anti the Supreme Caurt: of India. The said [V5 .17- pmvisien wiil have to be read down it) exciuéegﬁigh Court and Supreme Court from the word .. However, on merits, this does"11<i1;». '= 'V ground to interfere with the acquisitigeriee,1ietifiC9§t;iQIi$;_A Hence, the challenge to acq'L¥._i_si§ion"ﬁniii'icai"{ie15;$Iiailsi 'Writ petiticm is ja-.e€:eé!rdmg1y' ..%}71>;dge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court