Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.10 seconds)The Amending Act, 1897
The U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Act, 1958
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh on 30 September, 1957
In
the second place, the doctrine has no application in a case
where the impugned order has been made in violation of the
principles of natural justice (See The State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh(3).
Article 276 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rashid Ahmed vs The Municipal Board, Kairana.The Union ... on 19 May, 1950
It is a well-established proposition of law that when an
alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a
litigant he should be required to pursue that remedy and not
to invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to
issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of a
statutory remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the
High Court to issue a writ. But, as observed by this Court
in Rashid Ahmed v. The Municipal Board, Kairana(1), "the
existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken
into consideration in the matter of granting writs" and
where such a remedy exists it will be a sound exercise of
discretion to refuse to interfere. in a writ petition unless
there are good grounds therefore. But it should be
remembered that the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies
before a writ is granted is a rule of self imposed
limitation, a rule of policy, and discretion rather than a
rule of law and the court may therefore in exceptional cases
issue a writ such as a writ of certiorari notwithstanding
the fact that the statutory remedies have not been
exhausted.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 128 in The Rajasthan District Boards Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The U.P. Antarim Zila Parishad Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
1