Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3600
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Muzaffar Ali - Appellant
Versus
IXth Additional District Judge, Meerut & Ors. - Respondent
Writ - A No. - 5584 of 1994
Decided On : 23-04-2014
For the Petitioner:- Rajesh Gupta
For the Respondent:- S.C.
The limited scope of judicial review under Article 226/227 and the need for justification for judicial review of impugned orders.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Restoration Application - The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the restoration application and recalled the order dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution. The writ petition was restored to its original number and the court proceeded to decide the matter finally.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant's petition, which had been dismissed in both the lower courts, sought relief under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the concurrent findings of the lower courts could not be shown to be perverse or incorrect, and therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The court also emphasized the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226/227 and cited precedent to support its decision.
Issues: The issues involved the tenant's petition seeking relief under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act and the scope of judicial review under Article 226/227.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226/227 and the lack of justification for judicial review of the impugned orders in light of the legal principles discussed in a specific judgment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and vacated any interim order.
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.
2. Heard.
3. Cause shown for delay in filing recall/restoration application is sufficient.
4. Delay in filing restoration application is condoned.
5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard.
2. This is an application for recall of order dated 15.7.2008 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution.
3. Reason shown for non appearance have been explained satisfactorily. The application is allowed. Order dated 15.7.2008 is hereby recalled.
Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Order dated 15.07.2008 having been recalled vide order of date passed on restoration application, the writ petition is restored to its original number. As requested by learned counsels for parties, I proceed to decide this matter finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
3. This is tenant's petition, who has lost in both the Courts below, inasmuch as, application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") has been allowed by Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 5.8.1992, which has been affirmed by lower appellate court vide judgment dated 24.01.1994 by dismissing appeal of petitioner.
4. The concurrent findings recorded by Courts below could not be shown perverse or incorrect in any manner. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The scope of judicial review under Article 226/227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Writ-A No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Addl. Distt. Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others) decided on 30.7.2012. There is nothing which may justify judicial review of orders impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment.
5. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere.
6. Dismiss.
7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
