Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Nov 6: Justice Tashi Rabstan today held that High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes for which remedies are available under general law—civil or criminal.
Justice Rabstan made these observations while dismissing a petition filed by Prof Abdul Gani Bhat seeking damages/ compensation for defamatory report against him, which according to the petitioner caused loss to his prestige, position, name and fame.
“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”, Justice Rabstan said, adding “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”.
“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”, Justice Rabstan further said, adding “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”.
He further said: “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”.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel