DELHI H.C. while deciding the writ petition no. 11435 of 2009 on 4.9.2009 in re: BRAHMAPUTRA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. vs DELHI DEV. AUTHORITY observed as follows: -

QUOTE: This cannot be disputed that as to when a discretionary juridiction is to be exercised or refused to be exercised by the High Court, it is to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hig Court can entertain a writ petition if its is shown that there is something more which goes to the root of the jurrisdicionor something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to forcehim to adopt the remedies provided unde the civil law. Admittedly in the present case the petitioner has not contended that, any provision of law is ULTRA VIRES and has not sought quashing of the same nor i can be infered that the denial of the alleged ppayment to petitioner of service taxand the interest thereon is in violation of any written agreement or is in violation of any principles of natural justice. In ABL INTERNATIONAL LTD vs EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. [2004-3-SCC-553] it was held that the High Court having regard to the facts of he case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain the writ petition and it is the Court that has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercis of this powr. UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com   and click on the citation taxind_2010_hc_del_wp_11435]

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS isretionary jurisdiction, palpable injustice, root of the jurisdiction, ultra vires

DELHI HIGH COURT while deciding the W.P.(C) No.1210/2003 on 20.2.2010 in re: BRIG. V.K. ANAND vs UNION OF INDIA observed as follows:

QUOTE: When the two judges decided the writ petition under Article 226, which is in the nature of original proceedings, differed on a question of fact or law, reference to a third judge as contemplated is required to be made for disposal of the matter as per the majority opinion of the three judges/ [SEE RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs PRAVEENBHAI JASBHAI PATEL AIR 1997 SC 3892] . The issue referred to the third judge is whehe the petitioner’s trial by GCM was time-barred or not.  While deciding this issue the line of reasoning which may be adopted by the third judge may not be the same as adoped by either of the learned judges who made the reference. But that cannot be a reason for making a reference to a Full Bench. We are afraid such a course is not permissible under the Rules. We, therefore, remit the mater back to the learned single judge with a request to decide the refrence expeditiously. UNQIOTE

[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com  and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_del_wpc_1210]

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS Article 226, REFERENCE TO THIRD MEMBER