Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHAH PRABHU DAYAL versus U.P. SUSNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQF & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shah Prabhu Dayal v. U.P. Susnni Central Board Of Waqf & Another - WRIT - C No. 1570 of 1998 [2007] RD-AH 7683 (25 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.9

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9524 of 1995

Moazzam Ali.........................................................................................................................Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others..................................................................................Respondents

Hon'ble V.M.Sahai, J

Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J

We have heard Sri Shamim Ahmad holding brief of Sri M.A.Qadeer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents, their agents and employees from interfering in possession of the petitioner and to restrain the respondents from treating the property in dispute to be enemy property. The writ petition involves factual dispute which cannot be gone into by this court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, such a direction in the nature of mandamus cannot be issued.

The apex court in U.P. State  Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karmchari Sangh, (2004) 4 SCC 268 = 2005 AIR SCW-3149 has held as under:

"17.....Doubtless the issue of alternative remedy should be raised and decided at the earliest opportunity so that a litigant is not prejudiced by the action of the Court since the objection is one in the nature of a demurrer.  Nevertheless, even when there has been such a delay where the issue raised requires the resolution of factual controversies, the High Court should not, even when there is a delay, short-circuit the process for effectively determining the facts. Indeed the factual controversies which have arisen in this case remain unresolved.  They must be resolved in a manner which is just and fair to both the parties.  The High Court was not the appropriate forum for the enforcement of the right and the learned Single Jude in Anand Prakash case had correctly refused to entertain the writ petition for such relief."

In view of the aforesaid decision , the writ petition is liable to be dismissed  on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy as the disputed questions of fact are involved in it.

Therefore, this petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy to seek his remedy in appropriate forum.

25.4.2007

PK


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.