SANJA Y SITARAM KHEMKA versus STTE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Where multiple disputed facts and specific statutory remedies exist, writ jurisdiction under Article 226/Article 136 is not to be invoked, and no relief is to be granted; High Court's dismissal of writ petition is correct.
- Parties
- Petitioner: Sanjay Sitaram Khemka; Respondents: State of Maharashtra and Ors.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 05 May 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Special Leave Petition (criminal) No. 4131 of 2005 / Appeal From Bombay High Court's Decision in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1213 of 2005
- Outcome
- Special Leave Petition dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Article 226, Article 136, Disputed Questions of Fact, Remedies
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sanjay Sitaram Khemka
Petitioner
State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (criminal) No. 4131 of 2005 / Appeal From Bombay High Court's Decision in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1213 of 2005
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for reliefs involving disputed questions of fact
- 2 Whether High Court should intervene when specific remedies are available for the petitioner's grievances
- 3 Whether the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to equitable relief
Ratio Decidendi
Where multiple disputed facts and specific statutory remedies exist, writ jurisdiction under Article 226/Article 136 is not to be invoked, and no relief is to be granted; High Court's dismissal of writ petition is correct.
Court Disposition
Special Leave Petition dismissed
Orders
- No relief granted to petitioner
- Impugned judgment of High Court affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment