Harish Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32895 of 2023 Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Srivastava,Arjun Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶1List revised.

¶2No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition.

¶3Sri S.C. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents is present.

¶4In pith and substance the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for injunction against the private respondents for restraining them not to interfere in making maintenance/renovation of his house, situated upon the abadi land of Village Gamarahta, Post Tejpur Mau Aima, District Allahabad.

¶5Sri Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that disputed questions of facts are involved in this matter and the same cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶6The core issue before us is whether the writ jurisdiction in the High Court is available for enforcement of such rights claimed against private individuals or against the State.

¶6We do not agree that the petitioner is entitled to maintain this writ petition before this Court. It has repeatedly been held by this Court that regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of dispute relating to property rights between the private persons or with the State and the remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India shall not be available, except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged.

¶7The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes for which remedies, under common law, civil or criminal, are available. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly.

¶8Once an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the competent civil court, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. Needless to say, it is always open to the petitioner to press the relief before the appropriate forum/Court.

¶9With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 6.12.2023 S.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad