Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian — The Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court cannot invoke its writ jurisdiction to adjudicate ‘hotly disputed questions of facts’.

Live law

The Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court cannot invoke its writ jurisdiction to adjudicate ‘hotly disputed questions of facts’.

It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said.

The case arises out of a dispute between landlord and a tenant regarding repair of an old building. The Bombay High Court, in writ petition filed by a tenant passed the order granting liberty to commence the work of removal of a wall with the assistance of architects, at his own risk and costs. The writ petition was filed challenging the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act.

In appeal filed by the landlord, the Apex court bench observed that the High Court has committed a serious error in directing removal of a wall when there were conflicting reports including an earlier report of the Technical Advisory Committee on the basis of the opinions of other Architects, declaring the building to be of the C-1 category.

“26. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts. It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable.”, the bench observed.

The court said that, in the impugned order, the High Court did not explain how it was satisfied that the stability of the building could be restored by repair in the manner directed. The bench, therefore, allowed the appeal.

Case: Shubas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam [ CA 2848 OF 2021]

Coram: Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian

Citation: LL 2021 SC 335