Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.71 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000
In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. Sumathi and others (2000 (4) SCC 543), even though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in cases of disputed questions of fact in existence, on the face of unequivocal denial of tortious liability, seeking remedy under Article 226 may not be proper, it was held that the same cannot be understood that in every case of tortious liability the affected party should be directed to resort to filing of suit, holding that when there is negligence on the face of it, the same to be treated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such circumstances, to enforce the basic human rights, Article 226 can be pressed into service. On the facts of the said case, the Supreme court has come to the conclusion that a disputed questions of fact was involved, but held in the circumstances of the case that the appellant Electricity Board shall not recover the amount which has been paid to the respondents/victims. In that context, the Supreme Court has held as under:
Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd vs Best Roadways Ltd on 27 March, 2000
18. In 2000 (4) SCC 553 (Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. vs. Best Roadways Ltd.,), the Hon'ble Supreme Court no doubt held that the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Court cannot grant compensation to the family of victim who died by electrocution. However, in the very same judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there, it cannot be said there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vs Shail Kumari And Ors. on 11 January, 2002
11. It is also not in much dispute that the petitioner's husband was the only bread-winner of the family and the petitioner has three children out of whom one daughter got married and there is one unmarried daughter and an un-married son. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P.Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari and others [2002 (2) SCC 162] that the liability of the Electricity Board under Law of Torts to compensate for the injuries suffered cannot be denied on the basis that the Electricity Board has taken all safety measures since the liability of the Department is strict liability, relying upon the renowned and celebrated case on the issue, viz., Rylands vs,. Fletcher (1868 (3) HL 330 : 1861-73 All ER Rep.1). The Supreme Court has held as follows:
Smt. Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 14 January, 1992
In yet another case in Smt.Kumari vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (AIR 1992 SC 2069), when a six year old boy of the appellant died falling in a 10 feet deep uncovered sewerage tank in the City of Madras and the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court, while setting aside the said judgement, the Supreme Court has directed the State Government to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest to the appellant, however with a direction that the State Government can recover the said amount from appropriate authority, since the authority who is liable for negligence was not able to be determined. The operative portion of the above cited judgement is as follows:
U.P. State Co-Operative Land ... vs Chandra Bhan Dubey And Ors on 18 December, 1998
In U.P. State Coop. Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey (1999 (1) SCC 741 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 389) where one of us (Wadhwa, J.) was a party, this Court after examining various decisions of the courts on the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution observed that the language of Article 226 of the Constitution does not admit of any limitation on the powers of the High Court for the exercise of jurisdiction thereunder though by various decisions of this Court with varying and divergent views, it has been held that jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised only when a body or authority, the decision of which is complained, was exercising its power in the discharge of public duty and that writ is a public law remedy. This Court then observed: (SCC pp. 758-59, para 27)
"[It may not be necessary to examine any further the question if Article 226 makes a divide between public law and private law. Prima facie from the language of Article 226, there does not appear to exist such a divide. To understand the explicit language of the article, it is not necessary for us to rely on the decision of English courts as rightly cautioned by the earlier Benches of this Court. It does appear to us that Article 226 while empowering the High Court for issue of orders or directions to any authority or person, does not make any such difference between public functions and private functions. It is not necessary for us in this case to go into this question as to what is the nature, scope and amplitude of the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. They are certainly founded on the English system of jurisprudence. Article 226 of the Constitution also speaks of directions and orders which can be issued to any person or authority including, in appropriate cases, any Government. Under clause (1) of Article 367, unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject to any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein under Article 372, apply for the interpretation of the Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the legislature of the Dominion of India. Person under Section 2(42) of the General Clauses Act shall include any company, or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. The Constitution is not a statute. It is a fountainhead of all the statutes. When the language of Article 226 is clear, we cannot put shackles on the High Courts to limit their jurisdiction by putting an interpretation on the words which would limit their jurisdiction. When any citizen or person is wronged, the High Court will step in to protect him, be that wrong be done by the State, an instrumentality of the State, a company or a cooperative society or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or even an individual. Right that is infringed may be under Part III of the Constitution or any other right which the law validly made might confer upon him. But then the power conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is so vast, this Court has laid down certain guidelines and self-imposed limitations have been put there subject to which the High Courts would exercise jurisdiction, but those guidelines cannot be mandatory in all circumstances. The High Court does not interfere when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available or when there is an established procedure to remedy a wrong or enforce a right. A party may not be allowed to bypass the normal channel of civil and criminal litigation. The High Court does not act like a proverbial bull in a china shop in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226."
M.C. Mehta & Anr. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1986
The learned counsel would further rely upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 1086), where while exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the claims of the victims of Oleum Gas escape for payment of compensation against Shriram, has directed the Deli Legal Aid and Advice Board to take up the cases of sufferers to proceed by filing necessary application for compensation and directing the High Court to nominate one or more Judges for trying such action, to expeditiously decide the amount of compensation.