Art 226 Can't Be Invoked While Exercising Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Art 227 In Matter Of Dispute Between Private Parties: Rajasthan HC

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed that “while exercising supervisory jurisdiction in the matter of dispute between the private parties, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be invoked”. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:

A petition was filed by Nizamuddin against defendants-Municipal Corporation and private respondents in the matter of rejection of his application for temporary injunction from encroachment on public properties. The Single Judge hearing the petition passed an order assuming writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Said order was assailed by filing Special Appeal (Writ), wherein an interim order was passed by this Court that insofar as invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, shall remain in abeyance.

Observations of High Court:

The point of dispute in the present revolves around a question as to whether suo motu cognizance can be taken by Single Judge under Article 226 while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of a dispute between private parties in private domain?

The Bench relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423, wherein it was held that the Judicial orders of the civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam also held that jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction from jurisdiction under Article 226, noted the Bench.

Therefore, observing that invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by Single Judge cannot be sustained, the High Court set aside the orders passed by the Single Judge.

The High Court also clarified that all proceedings which have been drawn in compliance of said orders of the Single Judge, shall eventually stand nullified.

Counsel for Petitioners/ Appellants: Senior Advocate Ajeet Kumar Bhandari with Advocates Jitendra Mishra & Sunil Samdaria

Counsel for Respondents: Additional Advocate General G.S. Gill with Advocates Shikha Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Aslam Khan, Yuvraj Samant & Abhijeet Panchariya

Case Title: Suo Moto vs. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority

Case Number: D. B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 12931/2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 95

Click here to read/ download the Order