Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.25 seconds)Shyam Murari Lal Saxena vs The District Magistrate And Ors. on 30 January, 1976
9. It is, no doubt, true that so far as exercise of extraordinary power/jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court is concerned, the same is discretionary and needs to be exercised only if parties to the litigation come with clean hands. It is also true that if an Undertaking is given to this Court by a party, it is incumbent on such party to comply the same in toto and if any breach of such Undertaking is committed, the High Court, for adequate reason, can refuse to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and would be justified in dismissing the proceedings. However, in the instant case, we cannot turn the Nelson's eye to the fact that only interim order, dated 11-3-2002, passed by learned Single Judge was made subject to above referred Undertaking given by appellant and, therefore, the issue of Undertaking revolves only around the interim relief and if there is a breach of such Undertaking by the appellant, in the normal set of situation, the learned Single Judge would have been justified in vacating interim order, since the same was made subject to compliance of the Undertaking. However, by the order impugned, learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition itself, which, in our considered view, has resulted in miscarriage of justice. We concur with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Shyam Murari Lal Saxena v. The District Magistrate and Ors., .
1