The court of the writs is not to decide “very controversial questions of fact”, reiterates the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court cannot invoke its judicial jurisdiction to rule on “highly controversial questions of fact”. Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said. The case arises out of a dispute between the owner and a …
The Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court cannot invoke its judicial jurisdiction to rule on “highly controversial questions of fact”.
It is not for the High Court to benchmark conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable, Judges Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said.
The case arose out of a dispute between a landlord and a tenant concerning the repair of an old building. The Bombay High Court, in a written petition filed by a tenant, issued the order granting freedom to begin wall removal work with the help of architects, at its own risk and expense. The motion for brief was filed to challenge the notice issued by the municipality under section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act.
In the owner’s appeal, the Apex court found that the High Court erred in ordering the removal of a wall when there were conflicting reports, including an earlier report from the Technical advisory committee based on opinions from other architects. , declaring the building of category C-1.
â26. It is well established that the High Court, exercising its extraordinary judicial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not rule on highly controversial questions of fact. It is not for the High Court to benchmark conflicting technical reports. and decide which one is acceptable. “, the bench observed.
The court said that in the order under appeal, the High Court did not explain how it was convinced that the stability of the building could be restored by repairs in the prescribed manner. The judiciary therefore allowed the appeal.
Case: Shubas Jain v Rajeshwari Shivam [ CA 2848 OF 2021]
Coram: Judges Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian
Reference: LL 2021 SC 343
Click here to read / download the judgment