HARI KRISHNA MANDIR TRUST v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ss. 88, 91
- Discussed. Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
- Regional and Town Planning Act ss. 4, 8, 41, 44, 51, 59, 59(b), 63, 72, 73, 88, 91, 92(2), 93, 126
- Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 s. 3
- Planning Authority.Chapter VII of the Regional and Town Planning Act
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 300A
- Trust. The Regional and Town Planning Act
- Limitation Act, 1963 ss. 5, 12, 14
- VII of the Regional and Town Planning Act
Judgment
#2. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus or in the nature of Mandamus, but are duty bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a Statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion malafide, or on irrelevant consideration.In all such cases, the High Court must issue a Writ of Mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful A B C D E F G H HARI KRISHNA MANDIR TRUST v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 327 manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority. In appropriate cases, in order to prevent injustice to the parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authorities should have passed, had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. The Court is duty bound to issue a writ of Mandamus for enforcement of a public duty. There can be no doubt that an important requisite for issue of Mandamus is that Mandamus lies to enforce a legal duty. This duty must be shown to exist towards the applicant. A statutory duty must exist before it can be enforced through Mandamus. Unless a statutory duty or right can be read in the provision, Mandamus cannot be issued to enforce the same. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner’s right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles.[Paras 100-104][361-B-E; 362-D-F] Directors of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh and Others v. M.R. Apparao and Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 638: [ 2002] 2 SCR 661 – relied on.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — ss. 88, 91; Discussed. Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Regional and Town Planning Act — ss. 4, 8, 41, 44, 51, 59, 59(b), 63, 72, 73, 88, 91, 92(2), 93, 126; Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — s. 3; Planning Authority.Chapter VII of the Regional and Town Planning Act; Constitution of India — arts. 226, 300A.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Supreme Court of India, on 04 Mar 1986. The bench was INDU MALHOTRA, INDIRA BANERJEE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.