The jurisdiction to challenge actions of the Jaipur Development Authority under the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution, not Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

PREFATORY NOTE:

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and not under Article 227 thereof. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it becomes necessary to address the preliminary issue pertaining to the maintainability and the appropriate constitutional provision under which the present petition has been instituted.

2. The distinction between the scope and ambit of jurisdiction exercisable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been the subject of extensive judicial interpretation. While Article 226 confers upon the High Court the power to issue directions, orders, or writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari for enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose, Article 227 vests in the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. Thence, the choice of provision has material bearing on the nature of relief, the extent of judicial review, and the availability of appellate or revisional remedies.

3. In the instant case, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 challenging the following actions of the respondents:

3.1 Issuance of notice dated 11.03.2025 under Section 32 /34A of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, which is alleged to be without jurisdiction;

3.2 Sealing of the premises by the respondents on 12.03.2025, purportedly in violation of the principles of natural justice, and in a manner alleged to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and without lawful authority; and

3.3 The review order dated 15.07.2025, whereby in Appeal No. 250/2025, the learned Jaipur Development Appellate Tribunal has upheld the sealing of the premises wherein a marriage garden has been in operation, and has further directed the petitioner to seek conversion of the land in accordance with the JDA Rules and the applicable bye-laws.

4. In view of the nature of the impugned actions and the reliefs claimed, the preliminary question that arises for consideration is whether the present petition is appropriately maintainable under Article 226, or whether the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 ought to have been invoked, given that one of the impugned orders emanates from a quasi-judicial authority, namely, the Jaipur Development Appellate Tribunal. The resolution of this jurisdictional issue is imperative before entering into the merits of the controversy, as the constitutional foundation of the petition directly influences the standard and scope of judicial scrutiny applicable to the actions impugned herein.

5. Accordingly, the body of the present judgment is structured into two distinct parts: Part A deals with the jurisdictional issue concerning the maintainability of the petitions (illustratively the present petition), wherein Bar at large had been invited to put-forth their stance and assist the Court; and examines the appropriateness of invoking Article 226 as against Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in light of the nature of the impugned actions and the reliefs sought; and Part B thereafter proceeds to consider the substantive aspects of the matter, delving into the legality, propriety, and validity of the impugned actions of the respondents, and the entitlement of the petitioner to the reliefs claimed by way of the present writ petition. Accordingly, the discussion in Part A is devoted to a comprehensive examination of t