Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
Chamkaur Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 1619 of 2021
Decided On : 25-01-2021
Mandamus - Construction Dispute - The court held that the petitioner's grievance regarding the construction of a ramp resulting in water logging should not be agitated through the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy available.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to examine representations regarding the construction of a ramp by private respondents resulting in water logging.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's grievance should not be agitated through the writ jurisdiction and that the petitioner had an alternate civil remedy available.
Issues: Agitation of grievance through writ jurisdiction under Article 226
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's grievance should not be agitated through the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as an efficacious alternate remedy was available.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty for the petitioner to avail of his civil remedy.
JUDGMENT
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - This case has been taken up through Video Conferencing via Webex facility in the light of Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.
2. The instant petition carries an innocuous prayer i.e. a writ of mandamus to direct respondents No. 1 to 5 to examine the representations dated 11.03.2020, 28.05.2020 and 22.06.2020 (Annexures P-1, P-4 and P-7 respectively).
3. This Court has perused the afore-noticed representations. Apparently grievance of the petitioner is that private respondents No. 7 and 8 have constructed a ramp which the petitioner terms as illegal and which is resulting in some water logging.
4. In the considered view of this Court these are matters which ought not to be agitated up-front in terms of invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Petitioner would have an efficacious alternate remedy which would be open for him to pursue.
6. Confronted with a situation where this Court was not inclined to intervene, counsel seeks withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail of his civil remedy as may be available in accordance with law.
7. Disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
