Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.31 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1978
Article 31 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 December, 2002
" 19. While a High Court would normally not
exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy
is available, the existence of an alternate remedy does not
by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction
in certain contingencies. This principle has been
crystallized by this Court in Whirpool Corporation v.
Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai19 and Harbanslal Sahni
v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd20.
M/S Radha Krishan Industries vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 April, 2021
Recently, in Radha
Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors21 a
two judge Bench of this Court of which one of us was a part
of (Justice DY Chandrachud) has summarized the
principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the
High Court in the presence of an alternate remedy. This
Court has observed:
State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005
In State of HP v. Gujarat
Ambuja Cement Ltd & Anr., reported in (2005) SCC 6 499 this
Court has held that a writ petition is maintainable before the
High Court if the taxing authorities have acted beyond the scope
of their jurisdiction. This Court observed:
Hirday Narain vs Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly on 21 July, 1970
Patna High Court CWJC No.1185 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
8/10
"23. Where under a statute there is an allegation of
infringement of fundamental rights or when on the
undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to have
assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess can be the
grounds on which the writ petitions can be entertained. But
normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions
unless it is shown that there is something more in a case,
something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer,
something which would show that it would be a case of
palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to
adopt the remedies provided by the statute. It was noted by
this Court in L. Hirday Narain v. ITO [(1970) 2 SCC 355:
Vidaya Devi vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 8 January, 2020
12. The State as per the constitutional provision
cannot disposes a citizen of his property except in accordance
with law and procedure prescribed. The obligation to pay
compensation is not expressively included in Article 300-A of
the Constitution of India can be inferred in that Article. The law
in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court in case of Vidaya
Devi Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in
2020(2) SCC 569, I find it proper to quote the para-12.1 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1185 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
9/10
12.2 of the said judgment, which are inter alia reproduced
hereinafter;
The State Of West Bengal vs Subodh Gopal Bose And Others on 17 December, 1953
"12.1. The appellant was forcibly expropriated of her
property in 1967, when the right to property was a
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of
the Constitution. Article 31 guaranteed the right to
private property [State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose,
(1953) 2 SCC 688 , which could not be deprived without
due process of law and upon just and fair compensation.