Lamba Industries Vs. Union of India and Others
EmailAppeal: C.A. No.1000 of 1977
Petitioner: Lamba Industries
Respondent: Union of India and Others
Apeal: C.A. No.1000 of 1977
Judges: M.M. PUNCHHI & S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 31, 1990
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950:
Article 12 – State Trading Corporation – Whether an authority within the meaning of ‘authority’ in Article 12? – Held yes.
Article 226 – Breach of contract of obligations – Whether relief can be obtained by the party in writ petition – Held that the jurisdiction of High Court is wide and it knows where to grant relief and deny where.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by certificate from the Punjab and Haryana High Court apparently raises three questions of law stated to be of substantial and general importance. The first one is whether the State Trading Corporation is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and as such amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This question does not arise any more in view of the settled position of the expanded meaning given to the word ‘authority’. The second question whether relief can be obtained by a party in writ jurisdiction, even if it arises out of breach of contract of obligations, also does not survive for obvious reasons that the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide and it knows where to grant relief and deny where. The third question has not even been properly formulated and what is required is an authoritative decision from this Court. Having perused the judgment of the High Court with the assistance of learned counsel, we find that nothing survives to be answered by us. The judgment of the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not require any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
This appeal by certificate from the Punjab and Haryana High Court apparently raises three questions of law stated to be of substantial and general importance. The first one is whether the State Trading Corporation is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and as such amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This question does not arise any more in view of the settled position of the expanded meaning given to the word ‘authority’. The second question whether relief can be obtained by a party in writ jurisdiction, even if it arises out of breach of contract of obligations, also does not survive for obvious reasons that the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide and it knows where to grant relief and deny where. The third question has not even been properly formulated and what is required is an authoritative decision from this Court. Having perused the judgment of the High Court with the assistance of learned counsel, we find that nothing survives to be answered by us. The judgment of the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not require any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
