The single-judge bench dismissed the writ petition as misconceived, holding that a private dispute is resolvable only in civil courts and not in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
The writ petition was dismissed as misconceived.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15175 of 2020
Petitioner :- Balkiusun Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
It appears to be a private dispute which can be resolved only through court provided under common law and not in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
The writ petition is misconceived and dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.10.2020 Swati
(Prakash Padia J.) (Abhinava Upadhya J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a private dispute resolvable under common law can be adjudicated in extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Balkiusun
State Of U.P.
Abhinava Upadhya
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
