Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
There is a difference between entertainability and maintainability of a writ petition. Powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised in restricted circumstances and within well-defined parameters, even if there exists an alternate remedy.
“Initially a writ petition was filed before the High Court in the year 2000 which was transferred to the Tribunal in 2017 and thereafter, it came to be dismissed in 2024, we request the Tribunal to grant priority to hearing of this petition, and expect that the Tribunal shall hear and decide the same within a period of five months”
“We are not restricting Thirukural to Tamil Nadu alone but at the same time, we do not want to open the Pandoras box, that will lead to complete chaos. Hence, we are not entertaining the Writ Petition.”
“The law is an ass is a derisive expression said when the rigid application of the letter of law is seen to be contrary to common sense.”
“The petitioner stated that is manifestly clear that the detainee’s life and well-being is in imminent danger and the respondents has failed to protect the detainee’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution, including her right to personal liberty.”
The Supreme Court observed that availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the “maintainability” of a writ petition and that the rule, which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy provided by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law.
The Delhi High Court held that a borrower cannot ask for alteration of contract by way of a writ petition and a contract can only be altered through mutual consent between the parties.
Madras High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ
Tripura High Court: In a batch of writ petitions filed for directing the State Government to provide similar Pension benefit as granted
Madras High Court: Sanjib Banerjee, J., addressed whether this Court is the appropriate forum to decide the quantum that can be forfeited
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ., while addressing an issue with regard to the appointment
Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ and N.S. Dhanik, J. entertained a writ petition which sought mandamus against