Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen Rani vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Others on 1 July, 2024
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia, Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080911-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116
LPA-1462-2024
Date of Decision: 01.07.2024
Parveen Rani .....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.T., Chandigarh and others ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Mahavir Singh Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate,
for. Mr. L.S. Virk, Advocate,
for U.T. Administration.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
1. The present letter patent appeal is directed against the judgment
dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-13428-2024.
The learned Single Judge has noticed that the relief is regarding the claim of
original documents from the private respondent No.5, who is stated to be
immigration service provider and a private company. The writ petition has
been held to be not maintainable as it is a private dispute and, therefore,
alternative remedy has been directed to be availed of by the learned Single
Judge.
2. We have perused the paper book, which would go on to show
that there was apparently a Memorandum of Understanding between the
parties. The dispute is as such of getting a work visa for Portugal. In the
reply dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure P-7) given to the legal notice dated
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080911-DB
19.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) also by respondent No.5, it has been mentioned
that the said respondent was entitled to claim Rs.10,30,000/- after the
approval of the work visa apart from the fact that the passport has been
collected by the said respondent and handed over to the writ petitioner.
3. In such circumstances, apparently disputed issues of factual
matrix are arising apart from the fact that the writ petition as such would not
be maintainable against the private respondent. Accordingly, the learned
Single Judge has rightly relegated the writ petitioner-appellant to her
alternative remedy. The law regarding this aspect stands settled in United
Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others, (2010) 8 SCC 110,
whereby the legal principles have been laid down regarding the
maintainability of the writ petition, which read thus:-
"30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any
complex and disputed questions of facts and whether
they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective
remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of
unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred
by any valid law; and host of other factors.
The Court in appropriate cases in its discretion may
direct the State or its instrumentalities as the case may
be to file proper affidavits placing all the relevant facts
truly and accurately for the consideration of the Court
and particularly in cases where public revenue and
public interest are involved. Such directions are always
required to be complied with by the State. No relief
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080911-DB
could be granted in a public law remedy as a matter of
course only on the ground that the State did not file its
counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition.
Further,empty and self-defeating affidavits or
statements of Government spokesmen by themselves do
not form basis to grant any relief to a person in a
public law remedy to which he is not otherwise entitled
to in law."
4. Keeping in view the cumulative facts and that disputed
questions of facts are arising, we are of the considered opinion that the
learned Single Judge is well justified in relegating the writ petitioner-
appellant to her alternative remedy. Resultantly, the present letters patent
appeal stands dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
01.07.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
shivani JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes
Whether reportable No
3 of 3
