Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

With great respect to the learned Chief Justice we are unable to agree with his reasoning. It may be true that under article 226 of the Constitution this court never declares the civil rights of the parties but this court does in proper case enforce such rights in case of infringement of civil right of parties, for example, the right to property. It is also clear that various tribunals and public authorities are entrusted with the duty of adjusdicating between rival claims to property. A petition under article 226 of the Constitution to quash a decision of one such tribunal would certainly pertain to the civil right of the parties. Nor do we agree that an application for the issue of a writ under article 226 of the Constitution can never be a proceeding of the High Court in exercise of its civil jurisdiction. We have the high authority of the Privy Council in Zamindar of Parlakimedi v. Ryots of Garbhandu that the issue of a prerogative writ would be part of the original jurisdiction of a High Court and if it relates to civil rights it would be in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. Vide also Moulvi Hamid Hassan Nomani v. Banwarilal Ray. We cannot also refrain from referring to the facts that in several matter arising out of the petitions filed under article 226 of the Constitution this court has given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and so far as we are aware no objection was taken either by the court or by the eminent counsel who appeared in any of the cases that leave should not have been granted as the order appealed against was not passed in a civil proceedings. We, therefore, reject this part of the contention of Mr. Rama Rao Sahib.