Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.34 seconds)Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of ... on 27 February, 1953
In answer to these contentions on behalf of the appellant,
the learned Solicitor-General contended that, on a proper
construction of the relevant provisions of the Constitution,
it is clear that Sastri C. J.'s observations relating to
"authority" in the case of Election Commission, India v.
Saka Venkata Subba Rao (1) applied with equal force to
Government, inincluding the Union Government. The
Government of India functions through its officers and,
therefore, the location contemplated means the place at
which the orders impugned are ordinarily passed. The
considerations in a suit with reference to the cause of
action for the suit do not stand on the same footing in a
writ matter, because the writ has to reach the particular
officers of the Government concerned. The expression "in
appropriate cases" means that there may be cases where
though the Union Government as such is not located within
the territorial limits of a High Court yet a writ may be
issued against it by the High
(1) [1953] S.C.R. 1144.
K.S. Rashid And Son vs The Income-Tax Investigation ... on 22 January, 1954
The next case relied upon by the learned Solicitor General
is a converse one. It is the decision of this Court in K.
S. Rashid & Son v. The Income-tax Investigation Commission
(1). In that case the Income-tax Investigation Commission
located in Delhi was investigating the case of the
petitioners under section 5 of the Taxation on Income
(Investigation Commission) Act 1947, although the
petitioners were assessees belonging to Uttar Pradesh and
their original assessments were made by the Income-tax
authorities of that State. It was contended that the Punjab
High Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ under Art.
226 of the Constitution to the said Commission. This Court,
after restating the two limitations on the power of the High
Court to issue a writ, held that the Commission was amenable
to the jurisdiction of the Punjab High Court and, therefore,
the Punjab High Court had jurisdiction to issue the writ.
This decision also
(1) [1954] S.C.R. 738.
Article 300 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ryots Of Garabandho vs Zemindar Of Parlakimedi on 10 May, 1943
it is possible to introduce the concept of cause of action
in Art. 226 so that the High Court in whose jurisdiction the
cause of action arose would be the proper one to pass an
order thereunder. Reliance in this connection has been
placed on the judgment of the Privy Council in Ryots of
Garabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi (1). In that case the
Privy Council held that even though the impugned order was
passed by the Board of Revenue which was located in Madras,
the High Court would have no jurisdiction to issue a writ
quashing that order, as it had no jurisdiction to issue a
writ beyond the limits of the city of Madras except in
certain cases, and that particular matter was not within the
exceptions. This decision of the Privy Council does appa-
rently introduce an element of the place where the cause of
action arose in considering the jurisdiction of the High
Court, to issue a writ. The basis of the at decision,
however, was the peculiar history of the issue of writs by
the three Presidency High Courts as successors of the
Supreme Courts, though on the literal construction of cl. 8
of the Charter of 1800 conferring jurisdiction on, the
Supreme Court of Madras, there could be little doubt that
the Supreme Court would have the same jurisdiction as the
Justices of the Court of King's Bench Division in England
for the territories which then were or thereafter might be
subject to or depend upon the Government of Madras. It will
therefore not be correct to put too much stress on the
decision in that case.