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

2023 Supreme(Tri) 16

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Arindam Lodh, J.
Mandira Das - Appellant
Versus
Tripura University & Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 25 of 2023
Decided On : 12-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
S S Debnath, Advocate, D. Singh Kunwar, Advocate, Tanmay Debbarma, Advocate

Court recognizes the necessity for fair hearing by issuing notice to respondents in a writ petition.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition filed challenging the action of the University - Notice calling for the respondents to show cause was issued - Respondents are given the opportunity to file counter affidavits - Petitioner's assertion of a legal right requiring adjudication was recognized. (Paras 2, 3, 5)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 allows it to issue directions, orders, or writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. (Paras 2, 3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the actions of the university, seeking a rule to issue against the respondent parties, prompting the court to issue a notice for response.

Findings of Court:
The court recognized the need for a formal response from the respondents and allowed for the filing of counter affidavits.

Issues: Whether the petitioner’s actions necessitate a rule requiring a response from the respondents as sought in the petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that providing notice to the respondents for their response upholds the principles of fair hearing and due process within the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

Result: Notice issued; respondents to respond.

Table of Content
1. parties involved in the case (Para 1)
2. issuance of notice to respondents (Para 2)
3. procedural directions for the case (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. S. S. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Tanmay Debbarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Let a notice be issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a rule should not be issued as prayed for; and/or as to why such further order/s should not be passed as to this court may seem fit and proper.

3. Notice is made returnable within 6(six) weeks.

4. Since all the respondents have already entered their appearance, no formal notice is called for.

5. List the matter on 23.02.2023. In the meantime, the respondents may file their counter affidavits, if they so desire.

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 Back to top