State of U. P. VS Jeet S. Bisht

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

MARKANDEY KATJU
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Jeet S. Bisht – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties :
Amarendra Sharan, ASG., Sonam P. Wangdi, A.G., Ms. Rachna Srivastava, A.K. Rathore, Arumeshwar Gutpa, J.S. Attri, Addl. Adv., Genls., Dr. R.G. Padia, M.N. Krishnamani, Mrs. Shobha Dixit Sr. Adv., Pradeep Misra, R.K.S Yadav, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, V.K. Verma, S.K. Sharma, V.N. Raghupathy, Ashok K. Srivastava, N.S. Bisht, U.P. Sharma, M.P.S. Tomar, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Arun K. Sinha, Mrs. Ani Katiyar, Anis Suhrawardy, Ms. C.K. Sucharita, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Shivangi, MBRS, Raju, S. Sudeen, S. Balaji, Ms. S. Sunita, S. Srinivasan, Ranjan Mukherjee, Ravindra Kumar, B.V. Balaram Das, Riku Sharma, Angshuman (for M/s Corporate Law Group), Ms. Kavita Wadia, Pallav Shishodia, Naveen Kumar Singh, Kukul Sood, Shashwat Gupta, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Mrs. Shomila Bakshi, Ms. Sumita Dwivedi, Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Ms. Pooja Matlani, Rajesh Srivastava, Vivek Singh, Ajay Siwach, T.V. George, Manjit Singh, Harikesh Singh, V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam, S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, P.V. Dinesh, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, U. Hazarika, Satya Mitra, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Pinky Anand, D.N. Goburdhun, Rajesh Pathak, Kuldip Singh, P.K. Pandey, Sanjay Katyal, T.P. Mishra, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Nishakant Pandey, S.S. Shinde, V.N. Raghupathy, T.C. Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Ranjan Mukherjee, Anil Srivastava, Janaranjan Das, Ms. Swetaketu Mishra, K.N. Madhusoodh-anan, R. Sathish, Ashok Bhan, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, R.C. Kathai, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sunita Sharma, D.S. Mehara, Kh. Nobin Singh, Ms. A. Subhashini, A. Mariaputham, Aruna Mathur (for M/s Arpputham, Arun & Co.), Ms. Sunita Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, C.D. Singh, Merusagar Samantaray, Sanjay R. Hedge, Javed Mahmud Rao, Prakash Shrivastava, Radha Shyam Jena, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, T. Mahipal, Pramod Dayal, T.V. Ratnam and Ashok Mathur, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal furnishes a typical instance of a widespread malady which has infected the judicial system in India, namely, the tendency in some courts of not exercising judicial restraint and crossing their limits by encroaching into the legislative or executive domain, contrary to the broad separation of powers envisaged under our Constitution.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Shri Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate.

4. This appeal arises out of a writ petition filed in the Allahabad High Court in which the grievance of the writ petitioner was of charging excessive electricity bills by the U.P. State Electricity Board. In para 19 of the writ petition it was also mentioned that the petitioner had, before filing the writ petition, approached the District Consumer Forum, Chamoli but the same was not decided because the term of two members of the District Consumer Forum had expired and till the filing of the petition new members were not appointed and hence the District Consumer Forum, Chamoli was not working.

5. In the counter affidavit to the writ petition it wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

MARKANDEY KATJUState of U. P. – AppellantVersusJeet S. Bisht – Respondent

Cases Referred (20)

MARKANDEY KATJU
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Jeet S. Bisht – Respondent