Early Times Report
Jammu Nov 6: Justice Tashi Rabstan while deciding a petition filed seeking damages/ compensation for for making defamatory report against the petitioner, thereby causing loss to his prestige, position, name and fame, held that High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. While dismissing the petition filed by Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat, Justice Tashi Rabstan observed that the petitioner has independent efficacious remedy; he cannot agitate the matter by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and loss of reputation and damage to the petitioner is a disputed question of fact, which warrants inquiry into various factual aspects of the matter, and the same cannot be adjudicated upon and decided by this Court in writ jurisdiction.Court further observed that the present petition is also not maintainable in view of the fact that the person, against whom the damage is sought, is an individual person, not a State or a statutory authority amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. If the petitioner wants compensation from a private person, he should take recourse to the remedy available under the common law. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to enforce Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India through the High Courts. It is a Public Law remedy. For redressal of private wrongs, suits are to be filed in the regular Civil Courts. It is a Private Law remedy. With these observations Court dismissed the petition. |
