Sahibzada Saiyed Muhammedamirabbas ... vs The State Of Madhya Bharat& Others on 26 February, 1960
It is settled legal proposition that the remedy of a person
aggrieved
by the decision of the competent judicial Tribunal is
to approach for redress a superior Tribunal, if there is any, and
that order cannot be circumvented by resorting to an application for
a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution. Relief under Article 32
can be for enforcing a right conferred by Part III of the
Constitution and only on the proof of infringement thereof. If by
adjudication by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the right claimed
has been negatived, a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
is not maintainable. It is not generally assumed that a judicial
decision pronounced by a Court may violate the Fundamental Right of
a party. Judicial orders passed by the Court in or in relation to
proceeding pending before it are not amenable to be corrected by
issuing a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution. (Vide
Sahibzada Saiyed Muhammed Amirabbas Abbasi & Ors. Vs. the State
of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh) & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 768;
Smt. Ujjam Bai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1962 SC
1621; and Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar
Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1)