Skip to content


Nanabayaji and anr. Vs. Pandurang Vasudev - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR9Bom97
AppellantNanabayaji and anr.
RespondentPandurang Vasudev
Excerpt:
.....would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases.....west, j.1. in the present case the mamlatdar rejected the application of the present applicants, and referred for authority to a certain circular of the executive government. this was irregular, as in the exercise of his judicial functions he was bound to be governed by the law as he understood it, or as it had been expounded by superior judicial authority, not as it was understood or expounded by unjudicial persons. but the present is a case in which the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court is invoiced, and we must guard against its being abused, merely because the mamlatdar has fallen into a formal error. under section 332 of the code of civil procedure a subordinate judge, on the application of the present petitioners, would have examined them to discover if there was a probable.....
Judgment:

West, J.

1. In the present case the Mamlatdar rejected the application of the present applicants, and referred for authority to a certain circular of the Executive Government. This was irregular, as in the exercise of his judicial functions he was bound to be governed by the law as he understood it, or as it had been expounded by superior judicial authority, not as it was understood or expounded by unjudicial persons. But the present is a case in which the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is invoiced, and we must guard against its being abused, merely because the Mamlatdar has fallen into a formal error. Under Section 332 of the Code of Civil Procedure a Subordinate Judge, on the application of the present petitioners, would have examined them to discover if there was a probable cause for their application, and, in the absence of reason to suppose they had been wronged, he would have refused them a summary investigation. A similar inquiry by the Mamlatdar would, it seems to as, have led, in all probability, to a similar result. The applicants would thus have been left to their remedy by a suit on their title, if they have a title. That remedy is still open to them; and, seeing the relations of the parties, we do not think the case is one in which the extraordinary jurisdiction ought to be used to upset the order of the Mamlatdar, merely on account of an irregularity not apparently involving an injustice to the applicants.

2. We, therefore, discharge the rule with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //