Writ

Contention was that matter between the parties pertained to civil liability and a civil suit for specific performance of the contract was subjudice continuation of the proceedings was an abuse of process of law

Validity

Criminal cases were decided on the basis of material so collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation and the evidence recorded in the Trial Court and that too, after appraisal of evidence by court in accordance with law applicable thereto

High Court could not assume the role of an investigating agency or of a Trial Court to dilate upon the factual controversies involved in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction

Criminal as well as civil proceedings can be proceeded side by side and mere filing of a suit was not a ground for quashing of FIR

Factual controversies involved in the present case could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction

Constitutional petitions were dismissed in circumstances.

Such relief could not be obtained by making reference to unlawful executive orders.

Objection of concerned Judge was that petitioners were not `aggrieved persons' for not being eligible for appointment in their place

Validity

Held, it was not necessary for an aggrieved person to have a strict juristic right, but his existing right would be sufficient to assail order for being illegal and adversely affecting his rights

Advocates had always be considered aggrieved in case of act done in violation of the Constitution or undermining of independence of judiciary

Petitioners for being members of legal fraternity were naturally interested in supremacy of the Constitution, law and independency of judiciary

Such objection was repelled in circumstances.

Word `person' used in S.44(5) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 would not include Supreme Court, High Court or a Court or a Tribunal established under law relating to Defence Services

When appointment of Judge was either violative of mandatory provision of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 or made by an incompetent authority, challenge to such appointment was not covered by S.44(5) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974

Judicial order/action of Judge of High Court would be immune from challenge in writ jurisdiction and party aggrieved thereby would have to avail remedy provided under Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974

Principles.

Notification of appointment of Judge of High Court issued without consultation with both Chief Justices on basis of letter of President stating receipt of advice of Council

Validity

Necessity of transparency in making appointments of Judges, meaningful and purposive consultation would be considered as anvil of independence of judiciary

Record showed that name of so appointed Judge was not included in panel of Judges already sent by Chief Justice to the President

President, later on in letter addressed to Minister for Kashmir Affairs/Minister In charge Kashmir Council recommended said person for appointment as Judge and through another sought `No objection' from the Chief Justice in this regard

President after receiving `No Objection' from the Chief Justice wrote letter for appointment of the person as Judge

Such `No objection' of Chief Justice of Azad Jammu and Kashmir could not be treated as consultation as neither he had again recommended the said person nor had arisen any eventuality for fresh recommendations or panels

Though no mode and manner of consultation was provided by existing practice was that process had always been initiated by requesting Chief Justices for sending their respective panels

Both Chief Justice of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Chief Justice of High Court must have been consulted for appointment of Judges in High Court as none of them could perform functions of other; and the recommendations by any one in absence of other would have no constitutional validity

Combination of two offices, double/duel personality was not permitted by Azad Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, 1974

Rules of Business had not been complied with while issuing impugned notification

Neither Law Department nor the President nor Kashmir Council had any authority to appoint any person as Judge not recommended for appointment by Chief Justice of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Chief Justice of High Court

High Court emphasized on framing of rules or policy for making consultation process transparent, free from objections and confidence-inspiring

Consultation required by Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 was missing in the present case

High Court set aside impugned notification and declared office of the Judge of High Court as vacant.

Rule for issuing a writ of mandamus/enforcement of fundamental rights and for issuing writ of quo warranto is governed by two different independent sets of law in which there is no similarity and the ultimate decision of the court, in case writs are issued, produces altogether different results

In issuing of writ of mandamus/enforcement of fundamental rights, the court directs the official functionaries to do and perform what law requires them to do and to perform, and in case of issuing of writ quo warranto the person holding or purporting to hold public office ceases to hold office for it being without authority of law.

"Mandamus" literally means a command. It differs from writs of `prohibition' or `certiorari' in its demand for some activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed, for the performance of public duty. In other words it is a command directed to State or corporation, officer or, inferior Court, requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official position of the party to whom the writ is directed, or from operation of law. The writ 6f mandamus is a high prerogative writ of a most extensive remedial nature and is, in form, a command issuing from the High Court, directing any person, corporation, or inferior Court requiring him or them to do some particular thing, therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. Its purpose is to do the justice; in all cases where there is a specified legal right and no specific legal remedy for enforcing such right; and it may issue in cases where, although there is an alternative legal remedy, yet such mode of redress is less convenient; beneficial and effective. To sum up, a writ of "mandamus" commands the person to whom it is addressed to perform some public or quasi public legal duty, which he has refused to perform, and the performance of which cannot be enforced by any other adequate legal remedy. In the light of Constitutional mandate, subject to other conditions, it is absolutely necessary that the law should impose on the officer concerned the duty to do what he is refusing or omitting to do and that petitioner should be an aggrieved party having no other adequate and. efficacious remedy.

Petitioner filed Constitutional petition after he was suspended and charge-sheet was served on him for misconduct warranting penal action against him

Non-mentioning such facts in Constitutional petition would lead to presumption that petitioner had approached Court on- account of animosity and with vengeance for being placed under suspension

No plausible and justifiable. reason for delay of five years in filing Constitutional petition was shown

High Court dismissed Constitutional petition in limine.

For orderly and good governance validity of the appointment of incumbent of public office cannot be impugned through collateral proceedings

Principle of laches though does not apply to writ of quo warranto but the Court cannot close its eyes as regards the conduct of petitioners appearing before the Court, which militates against the bona tides of the petitioners.

CIT directed to consider whether there had been delay in receiving refunds and such a delay resulted in 'assessee not being able to pay taxes on time

Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.215 & 220

Constitution of India, Art. 226.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Constitution of India, Art. 226.

Scope.

Constitution of India, Art. 226.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Constitution of India, Art. 226.

Constitution of India, Art. 226.

Constitution of India, Art. 226.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Constitution of India, Art. 226.

Constitution of India, Art. 226.

High Court will not ordinarily interfere with decision of I.T. Authorities Constitution of India, Art. 226

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Constitution of Indian, Art.226.

Writ could not be issued if substantial justice had been done to the parties.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Constitution of India, Art.226

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.132.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sched. II. R.11.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147, 148 & 264.

Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.263.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

High Court does not normally interfere in orders passed by judicial authority in pending proceedings.

Constitution of India, Art.226.

Dismissal of petition in default, held, was not justified since litigant was not to suffer for no fault on his part.

Employees having no legal right under the Housing Scheme, mandamus could not be issued on ground that welfare State should provide house to every citizen specially of low income groups

Constitution of India, Arts. 226 and 39.

Writ petition for restraining respondents from disturbing lawful possession of petitioner alleging some complaints made by respondents and action taken by police thereon was not maintainable, for remedy for such matters was civil suit or under the Criminal Procedure Code against alleged criminal complaints

Constitution of India Art. 226.

Public functionary whose order or action is challenged must be impleaded as a party.

Policy decision having been taken by the Corporation to abolish the system of private storage agency, notice of termination of agreement was served on the other party

High Court could not go into the question of contractual obligation in its Constitutional jurisdiction

Constitution of India, Art. 226.

Trial Court taking possible and plausible view in case-High Court cannot interfere merely because another view is attractive.