Maintainability of the Writ Petition Before High Courts
Introduction
Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1950 gives power to High Courts to issue certain writs. A Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory right or legal right qua the petitioner is breached.
Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is invoked. The reliefs prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. To maintain any petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner must demonstrate violation of his personal rights or any cause of action.
Essentials
There are two essentials for the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950:
1. Cause of Action; and
2. locus standi.
1. CAUSE OF ACTION
In the case of Kusum Ingtos and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and another, 2004 MhLJ Online (S.C.) 36 = (2004) 6 SCC 254 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the petitioner/plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the respondent/defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily.”
Compendiously, the expression “cause of action” means every fact which it would be necessary for the petitioner to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. What has to be seen is whether or not a meaningful reading of the petition discloses a cause of action. For the limited purpose of determining the question whether the petition is to be wiped out or not for want of cause of action, the averments in the petition are only to be looked into. It has to be culled out from a conjoint reading of all the paragraphs of the petition.
Whether The Passing Of Any Legislation(S) Confers Any Right To File A Writ Petition?
Passing of a legislation by itself does not confer any right to file a writ petition unless a cause of action arises thereof. The Court discerns and deciphers as to how any statutory right or legal right of the petitioner has been affected/violated. If at all passing of any legislation gives a cause of action, then it ought to have been demonstrated diligently that because of the implementation of the same, the petitioner has suffered any civil or harmful consequences.
Caution While Drafting Petition
It should be kept in mind that the facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. The petitioner must necessarily plead vis-à-vis prayers made therein which at a first glance with all certainty will reflect seemingly all pervasive cause of action leading to a decisive determination of issues so that the confidence of the Court gets inspired and it gives the relief.
The petition as a whole must give an impression that the grievances have been projected and couched in a significant way so as to discern a real and genuine so also a definite cause of action. The petitioner should not leave it to the Court to read in between the lines and take upon itself and embark upon an enquiry whether indeed there was an infraction of legal rights of the petitioner or not. It is pertinent to note that there should be a sanguine, real and genuine so also definite cause of action which the Courts should be able to locate and perceive in any petition.
Cases Where Vires Of Any Statute Is Challenged
In cases where the vires of statutory provisions are challenged on constitutional grounds, it is essential that the material facts should first be clarified and ascertained with a view to determine whether the impugned statutory provisions are attracted; if they are, the constitutional challenge to their validity must be examined and decided.
If, however, the facts admitted or proved do not attract the impugned provisions there is no occasion to decide the issue about the vires of the said provisions. Any decision on the said question would in such a case be purely academic. Courts are and should be reluctant to decide constitutional points merely as matters of academic importance.
2. LOCUS STANDI
Locus standi is an old traditional concept that says that the person whose rights have been infringed should come to seek remedy. Every person has the right to file a case & also to have filed a case. It is a concept that is about the person's right to bring an action before the court of law or to address it.
In the law of Torts, every person has the right to sue & to be sued. The traditional concept of locus standi is that the person whose rights have been compromised can bring an action before the court of law. Legal capacity to challenge an act or law is the meaning of locus standi.
If the person whose rights have been violated by some other person, he can go to court, but if the administrative actions do the violation, one cannot get a judicial redress until the person shows some special injuries connected with the act by the body which is infringing the rights of the other.
It is an established legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest.
In the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87 the Supreme Court held that where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226.
What Does The Expression “Aggrieved Person” Connote?
Moreover, in the case of Jashbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed (1976) 1 SCC 671 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the expression “aggrieved person” denotes an elastic, and to an extent, an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. At best, its features can be described in a broad tentative manner.
Scope And Meaning
Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, nature and extent of the petitioner’s interest, and the nature of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. English Courts have sometimes put a restricted and sometimes a wide construction on the expression “aggrieved person”.
Conclusion
In the case of Ayyaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 561 = (2013) 4 SCC 465 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a Court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities.
Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance.
The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. Broadly stating, it is no idle whataboutery to point out that a person who raises a grievance must show how he has suffered a legal injury. A person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission.
