Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

"If the writ petition under Article 226 in a High Court is dismissed on the merits (i.e. dismissed in limine); but because of laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then dismissal of writ petition (under Article 226) would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32." This principle was laid down by Supreme Court in:

"If the writ petition under Article 226 in a High Court is dismissed on the merits (i.e. dismissed in limine); but because of laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then dismissal of writ petition (under Article 226) would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32." This principle was laid down by Supreme Court in: Correct Answer Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Related Questions

Assertion (A): A Habeas Corpus writ petition dismissed by the Supreme Court can be admitted by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
Reasons (R): In exercising writ jurisdiction the powers of the Supreme Court and High Court are concurrent
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court passes judgment in a matter. In a later case before a high court, a party presents the Supreme Court judgment as a binding authority. The opposing party claims that the high court is not bound by the Supreme Court's judgment because relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in that case. Which of the following is most correct in this case?
Principle: Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
A, a bank officer, got compulsorily retired in 2014. Since the bank authorities did not release the leave encashment in his favour, he filed writ petition WP 2001 (W) of 2017 in Ranchi High Court for the same and also for the interest on the unpaid amount. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge in December 2018 directing the bank to release the privileged leave encashment benefits to the petitioner to the extent he was entitled to in accordance with law within a certain period. The prayer for interest was not specifically denied by the court. The bank filed an appeal against the order. The Division Bench of Ranchi High Court in February, 2019 declined to admit the appeal. The bank authorities released the leave encashment in favour of the petitioner. However, A files a writ petition again for a direction to the bank to disburse interest to A at the rate of 18% per annum on leave encashment released by the bank. This petition is covered under which of the following?
A seven member bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down clauses 2(d) of Article 323A and clause 3(d) of Article 323B of the Constitution relating to tribunals which excluded the jurisdiction of High Court and Supreme Court. The court held that power of judicial review over legislative action is vested in the High Court under Article 226 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32. This is an integral part of the basic structure of the constitution. Name the case:
Which of the following statements are correct? Answer by using the code given below:
1. Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in District judge selection process held in "Vijay Kumar Misra and another v. High Court of Judicature at Patna" by the Supreme Court of India
2. The Supreme Court of India held in S. Kazi v. Muslim Education Society that " All Tribunals are not necessary parties to the proceedings where legality of its orders challenged"
3. The Supreme Court of India observed in Cardanumom Marketing Corporation and others v. State of Kerala and others that Social Security to the legal profession becomes an essential part of legal system
4. The Supreme Court of India held in 'Union of India v. Rajasthan High Court and others that High Court judges are exempted from Airport frisking.
That a petition dismissed under Article 226 would operate as res judicata so as to bar a similar petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution was held in the case of;
Study the following statements and pick up the correct code:
Statement I: The power of High Court to issue writs under Article 226 is wider than the power of Supreme Court under Article 32.
Statement II: The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs only for violation of fundamental rights whereas the power of High Court under Article 226 can be invoked for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as legal rights.
Assertion (A): Refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 does not bar the remedy for a similar writ under Article 32.
Reason (R): The rule of res judicata is not applicable to the writ of habeas corpus.
Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and give the correct answer:
Assertion (A): Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court has discretionary remedy to issue writs.
Reason (R): If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate remedy elsewhere it can refuse to grant writ.
Consider the following statements:
1. The powers of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are wider than those of Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2. Both High Court and Supreme Court have concurrent power to enforce the fundamental rights.
3. It is mandatory for a petitioner first to approach the High Court instead of approaching the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Which of the statements given above are correct?