Skip to content


In Re: Kallumattam Thippaswami Minor by Next Friend and Father Rudrayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Petn. No. 5771 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Mad112; (1951)2MLJ171
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantIn Re: Kallumattam Thippaswami Minor by Next Friend and Father Rudrayya
Advocates:C. Chinnappa Reddi and ;P. Ramakrishna, Advs.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
- - we are clearly of the view that article 226 does not confer a new remedy in cases like this where there was no remedy before the constitution......226 of the constitution should not be construed so as to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit and application available to the litigant under the general law of the land. directions in the nature of a writ of mandamus should not, in our opinion, issue under this article except to a public a quasi public body or officer which is under an obligation, statutory or otherwise, to do or refrain from doing anything which is likely to interfere with the rights of persons. in this case, it is admitted that ordinarily the remedy of the petitioner would be by way of a suit and an application for injunction in the suit. the fact that the district court of anantapur in which the suit should have been filed is closed for the summer recess would not render article 226 applicable. it was.....
Judgment:

Rajamannar, C.J.

1. This is an application purporting to be under Article 226 of the Constitution at the instance of a minor by his guardian for directions in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from cutting the trees standing on certain survey numbers in a village and from removing the timber from the said lands. In our opinion, Article 226 of the Constitution should not be construed so as to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit and application available to the litigant under the general law of the land. Directions in the nature of a writ of mandamus should not, in our opinion, issue under this Article except to a public a quasi public body or officer which is under an obligation, statutory or otherwise, to do or refrain from doing anything which is likely to interfere with the rights of persons. In this case, it is admitted that ordinarily the remedy of the petitioner would be by way of a suit and an application for injunction in the suit. The fact that the District Court of Anantapur in which the suit should have been filed is closed for the summer recess would not render Article 226 applicable. It was admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that before the Constitution, the petitioner would have had no remedy. We are clearly of the view that Article 226 does not confer a new remedy in cases like this where there was no remedy before the Constitution. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents, he may have now no remedy by way of injunction but he will certainly have his remedy by way of damages for any unlawful action that may be done by the respondents. We think the application is not maintainable under Article 226.

2. Our jurisdiction under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent was also invoked. But that clause does not enable us to pass any order against a third party which should ordinarily be passed only in a regular suit or other proceeding instituted in a competent Court.

3. The application is therefore dismissed.


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