SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(All) 31

M.KATJU, PRAKASH KRISHNA
BIHARI LAL CHAUHAN – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.N.TRIPATHY

M. KATJU, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the transfer order dated 19. 12. 2002.

( 2 ) IN our opinion, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on two grounds. Firstly, transfer is an exigency of service and the Court cannot ordinarily interfere with a transfer order. Secondly, the writ petition has been filed against a private company, i. e. , Samtal Colour Ltd. Ordinarily, no writ lies against a private body except a writ of habeas corpus.

( 3 ) NO doubt the language of Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide. Article 226 states :

"226 (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government within those territories directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus prohibition, quo warranto and certtorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights covered by part III and for any other purpose. "

( 4 ) A perusal of Article 226 (1) shows that it is mentioned therein that the High Court can issue writs t









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top