সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Joint Reliefs in Writ
The learned Advocate for the leave petitioner put a question that in a proceeding under Article 102(2)(b)(ii) of the Constitution, i.e. in a writ of quo warranto, direction cannot be sought for in the form of mandamus because in that case, the proceeding becomes a mixture of writ of quo warranto and mandamus and the Court in such circumstances should not grant such relief. Such submission is not acceptable as there is no difficulty under Article 102 of the Constitution to combine reliefs and, as such, writ of quo warranto may be issued with writ of certiorari or mandamus. In the case of the State of Haryana vs The Haryana Co-Operative Transport Ltd, reported in AIR 1977 SC 237, award given by the presiding officer of the Labour Court was challenged on the ground, inter alia, that he was not qualified to hold the post of a Judge of the Labour Court. The matter went up to the Supreme Court by special leave, wherein the only question for decision was whether Shri Hans Raj Gupta who gave his award as the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was qualified for being appointed as a Judge of the Labour Court. The Supreme Court of India in that case held:
"The mere circumstances that the 1st respondent did not in so many words ask for the writ of quo warranto cannot justify the argument that the appointment was being challenged collaterally in a proceeding taken to challenge the award. Considering the averment in the writ petition, it seems to us clear that the main and real attack on the award was the ineligibility of Shri Gupta to Chioccupy the post of a Judge of the Labour Court, in the discharge of whose functions the award was rendered by him. The relief of certiorari asked for by the writ petitioner was certainly inappropriate but by. clause (c) of paragraph 16, the High Court was invited to issue such other suitable writ, order or direction as it deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. There is no magic in the use of a formula. The facts necessary for challenging to his appointment is expressly made on the ground that he was not qualified to hold the post of a Judge of the labour Court." [73 DLR (AD) (2021) 109]
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
