The case revolved around a special package sanctioned by the Govt. of India for the revival of infrastructural projects which were affected severely due to rise of militancy in Jammu and Kashmir in the 1990s.
“It is more so when remedy provided under S. 70 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 happens to be alternate and more efficacious one”.
Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ cannot be issued against a Government- entity which has been subsequently privatized and no longer performs any public duty.
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.
Supreme Court: On the issue of the scope of judicial review of action by the State in a matter arising from a
Patna High Court: In a writ petition filed for the quashing of the illegal appointments of Vice-Chancellors, Pro Vice Chancellors and other
“Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226.”
Supreme Court: The bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has lucidly explained the law on the jurisdiction in case of
Himachal Pradesh High Court: In the case where it was argued before the Court that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for
Delhi High Court: Stating that mere writing of a letter of representation cannot furnish an adequate explanation for the delay, Jyoti Singh,
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of interference in matters relating to Government contracts and tenders, the bench of Hemant Gupta* and V.
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sam Koshy J. partly allowed the petition and partly disposed of the petition expressing no opinion on the termination
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of writ jurisdiction, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the State
Sikkim High Court: Meenakshi Madan Rai, J., decided on a petition wherein the petitioner body established under the Sikkim Municipalities Act, 2007,
by Ajit Warrier†, Arundhati Srivastava†† and Sajal Mendiratta†††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 63
Telangana High Court: P. Naveen Rao J., while dismissing the present petition, reiterated that the scope of interference under Article 226 is
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J., while dismissing the present petition on lack of merits, said, “… election process has
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, DInesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has refused to interfere with the termination
Karnataka High Court: S. G. Pandit J., rejected the petition on the ground of delay and latches. The facts of the case