Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
maintainable because there was a clear violation of fundamental rights by act of the police
men. The contention that the writ is not maintainable is not appropriate because respondent
can be sued under Article 300 of COI.
It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the existence of adequate
alternative remedy is not any part to hinder the application of Supreme Court
jurisdiction under Article 32 when relief if sought in case of Infringement of
Fundamental Rights. This stand has been proposed by the Supreme
1
Common Cause regd v.UOI (1999) 6 SCC
2
Prasar bharti broadcasting v. debyajoyti bose. AIR 2000.
3
Bokaro and ramgar ltd. V. State oif Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 516
4
Clacutta gas v. state of west Bengal AIR 1962 SC 1044.
5
Om Prakash Shrivastav v. UOI and ans (2006) 6 SCC 207
Court in the precedent Rudul Shah v. state of Bihar6as well ie. However it cannot be
understood as laying a law that in every case of tortuous liability recourse must be had
to a suit. Hence the present petition is maintainable notwithstanding an alternative
legal remedy. Where public officials are involved and the case relates to violation of
fundamental rights the remedy would still be available under public law
notwithstanding that a particular suit has been filed for claiming the compensation in
private law therefore it sis pertinent to note that the same has been retiterated in the
case of railway board corp v. chandrima das 7.
Hence form the above stated precedents and the arguments advanced the petitioner is
having locus standi and writ petition filed before the apex court is maintainable.
6
AIR 1983 SC 1086
7
28 January, 2000 SC.