LexKALABHARATI ADVERTISING versus HEMANT VIMALNATH NARICHANIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 971 KALABHARATI ADVERTISING v. HEMANT VIMALNATH NARICHANIA AND ORS. (Civil appeal No. 7349-50 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 06, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: A B Article 226 - The forum of the writ court cannot be used c for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and final relief to any litigant - Interim order. Withdrawal of a petition - It is not permissible for a party filing a writ petition, to obtain certain orders during the pendency of the petition and then withdraw the petition without D getting proper adjudication of the issue involved therein - In such a situation, the benefit of interim relief automatically gets withdrawn/neutralized on withdrawal of the said petition - Court should a/so pass express order neutralising the effect of all interim/consequential orders - Maxim "Actus Curiae E neminem gravabit", which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no-one, becomes applicable in such a case - Maxim - Doctrine of restitution - Doctrine of merger. Article 136 - If pursuant to directions of the High Court, F Municipal Corporation passes an order then that order can be challenged in the Supreme Court. Interim order: If the court comes to the conclusion that the matter G requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such a litigant. Review: 971 H 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 10 S.C.R. A Review - Maintainability of - Held: Not maintainable in absence of statute/rules granting an express power of review. Review - Held: Is a statutory remedy - Court cannot confer jurisdiction of review upon an authority - On facts, the High Court permitted the Corporation to withdraw its earlier 8 order and gave liberty to it to pass fresh orders - Pursuant thereto, the Corporation recalled its earlier order and reviewed the same without assigning any reason and without giving opportunity to be heard to the parties - The order passed by the Corporation stood vitiated for not recording reasons and C violating the principles of natural justice - It was obligatory on the part of the Corporation to explain as to what was the material on record on the basis of which the earlier order was changed - Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Malice - Natural justice. D Administrative law: Statutory authority - Legal malice - Held: State is under obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice-in fact or in law - On facts, order of Municipal Corporation recalling its earlier E order and reviewing the same without assigning any reasons and without giving opportunity of hearing to parties, establishes the a/legation of malice - Malice - Natural justice. Words and phrases: F "Legal malice" or "malice in law" - Meaning of 'withdrawal' - Meaning of The appellant-firm was carrying on a business of G advertisement hoardings in the city of Mumbai and was permitted to erect the hoardings in respondent no.13- Society. A Committee was constituted by the High Court in a writ petition against the Municipal Corporation challenging the grant of hoardings in Mumbai on the H ground of various violations of guidelines issued by the KALABHARATI ADVERTISING v. HEMANT 973 VIMALNATH NARICHANIA Corporation for the said purpose. The Committee found A that 266 hoardings including that of the appellant were in violation of the guidelines. The High Court directed the aggrieved parties to file representations before the Statutory Authority. Accordingly, the appellant made a representation before the Municipal Commissioner. The B Commissioner disposed of the representation on 6.4.2004 directing the appellant to apply to Chief Engineer for condonation of compulsory open space clause of guidelines with an observation that regularisation of the hoardings would be subject to the outcome of the writ c petition. Thereafter the appellant made a representation before the competent authority. The authority examined the case and was of the view that there was no violation of the said guideline. Some dispute arose between the Society and few of D its members, who raised certain objections regarding the erection of the hoardings. The members approached the Co-operative Court challenging the grant of permission to erect the hoardings to the appellant and also made an application for interim relief. However, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.