TeamCode-TO35

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT

IN THE MATTER OF
….…………………….

C ..Appellant

V
L .Respondant

….……………..

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

Voice of C.U. Law Students Moot Court Competition 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.List Of Abbreviations ----------------------------------------------2

2.Index Of Authorities ------------------------------------------------3

3.Statement Of Jurisdiction -----------------------------------------4

4.Statement Of Facts --------------------------------------------------5

5.Issued Raised ---------------------------------------------------------6

6.Summary Of Argument -------------------------------------------7-9

7.Prayer ------------------------------------------------------------------10
 2

LIST OF ABBREVEATIONS

1. Ors ------------------------- Others

2. Ltd ------------------------- Limited

3. Corpn. ------------------------Corporation

4. Hon’ble ------------------------ Honourable

5. No. -------------------------------- Number

6 SC ------------------------------ Supreme Court

7 SCC ---------------------------- Supreme Court Cases

8. Vs -------------------------------- Versus
 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 STATUTES:

a) The West Bengal Land Reforms Act,1955

 CASES :

a) Gunwant Kaur and Ors. vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and Ors.
(1969) 3SCC 247)
b) ABL International Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee
Corporation of India Ltd. And Ors,
c) M/S Real Estate Agencies v Government of Goa and State of Kerala v
M.K Jose
d) Popatrao Vyankatrao Patel v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (CIVIL
APPEAL No. 1600 OF 2020 – Supreme Court)
e) Devinder Singh v State of J and K
f) Radha Krishna Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
g) Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, (1998) 8
SCC1
h) Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd, (2003) 2 SCC 107,
 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE APPELLANT HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE HIGH

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble District Forum, the facts are
summarised as follows :

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble District

1. A had applied before the Block Land and reforms Authority for
the mutation of his name in the record of rights.
2. A had bought the said piece of land from E.
3. After E’s death, B, E’s legal heir objected to the mutation stating
that the sake deed was fraudulent and as such, no right was
transferred from E to A.
4. The authorities, owing to the objection raised by B rejected the
application.
5. After this, A filed for mutation under the District Land and Land
Reforms Authority, where the application had been pending for a
long time. Due to this inordinate delay, A filed a writ petition
challenging the order of the BL and LRO.
6. B, being a party to the case, objected that the Hon’ble High Court
isn’t the appropriate place of jurisdiction for such a case. Due to this,
a single bench of the Hon’ble High Court rejected the petition,
following which it was brought before a Division Bench of the
Hon’ble High Court.
 6

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the High Court is the appropriate forum for such appeal.
2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable.
3. Whether A should be granted what he sought.
 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The counsel for the Appellant would like to humbly submit before the Honourable
Division Bench of the Honourable High Court of Calcutta that the in giving the
judgement the Honourable Single Bench has overlooked certain principles, precedents
and judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court.

The Writ petition filed by my client before the Honourable Single Bench under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
The same was the dismissed on the ground that it wasn’t maintainable as the
Honourable High Court was not the proper forum.

The counsel for the Appellant would like to argue this decision saying that High Court
is the proper forum rendering the Writ maintainable.
1) Question of Fact : In dismissal of the Writ, the main reason was given by the
Honourable Single Bench ,that the nature of the issue involves a question of
fact and not a question purely of law. Thus rendering the Writ not
maintainable.

To understand the question of maintainability of the said writ , the nature of article
226, needs to be taken into consideration. Article 226, vests upon the Honourable
High Court a discretionary power without placing any limitations. The limitation of
not entertaining a Writ involving dispute question of fact ,is self imposed and in no
way absolute as can be understood from various decisions and judgments.

In the case of Gunwant Kaur and Ors. vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and
Ors. (1969) 3SCC 247) the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the High
Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226
merely because in considering the petitioner’s right to relief, “questions of fact” may
fall to be determined. It further held that in a petition under Article 226 the High
Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and of law. Exercise of the writ
jurisdiction is a discretionary power, and that such discretion must be exercised on
sound judicial principles.

In the case of ABL International Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee
Corporation of India Ltd. And Ors, the Honourable Supreme court that in an
appropriate case, the High Court has jurisdiction to try writ petition involving
disputed question of fact.
In this case it was also established by the Honourable Apex Court that power to issue
writs under article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and not limited by any
other provision in the Constitution.

Relying on these two judgments quite a lot decisions were given where the High
Court was upheld as fully empowered to hear a question of law with questions of facts
involved as well as a pure question of law.

In cases like M/S Real Estate Agencies v Government of Goa and State of Kerala
v M.K Jose the Honourable Supreme Court upholding the above mentioned decisions
set aside High Court’s dismissal of Writ Petitions only on the ground that dispute of
facts were involved.
 8

In the recent case of Popatrao Vyankatrao Patel v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
(CIVIL APPEAL No. 1600 OF 2020 – Supreme Court) relying on the Gunwant
Kaur and ABL Internationals judgement has held that there is no provision in the
Constitution which puts a restriction on the power of the High Court to entertain Writ
under Article 226. That the rule of entertaining writs which involved questions of law
is a self-restrain rule which the High courts have imposed on themselves and not a
hard and fast rule.

On this ground the Counsel for the Appellant humbly submits that the Writ Petition is
in fact maintainable.

2) Alternative Remedy : Another Ground for the dismissal of the Writ Petition
was held as the existence of alternative statutory remedy.

The counsel for the Appellant would like to state, that just like the rule of
question of fact, the rule that all the alternative remedies has to be exhausted
before a Writ Petition is granted is self imposed and not absolute.

In the case of Devinder Singh v State of J and K it was held that the rule
required for the exhaustion of statutory remedies before writ will be granted is
a rule at policy, convenient and discretion and rule required the exhaustion
of statutory remedies before the writ will be granted is a rule at policy,
convenient and discretion rather than rule of law.

In relation to this the counsel for the Appellant would like to humbly submit
that the inordinate delay of ' District and and Land Reforms Authority '
regarding the appeal practically amounts to the exhaustion of alternative
statutory remedies.

Further , in a very recent case of

“An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily,
a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy
is provided by law.”

Now from this Judgement by Honourable Justice Dr D.Y Chandrachud two

I) The rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies before granting Writ , is

II) For a Writ to be dismissed on the ground of alternative statutory

The Counsel for the Appellant would like to humbly submit that the fact that my
client's appeal is pending before District Land and Land Reforms Authority for an
inordinately long time indicates that the alternative remedy the Honourable Single
Bench has directed my client to avail is neither “efficacious” nor effective.

The Counsel for the Appellant therefore would like to plead that the Writ Petition is
maintainable before the honourable High Court on this ground also.
 10

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the Counsels on behalf of the Appellant humbly pray before this
Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

1.That the Hon’ble High Court is the appropriate forum of appeal and the writ petition
is maintainable.
2.That A is granted the relief in form of the mutation of his land.

To pass any further order or orders that this court may deem fit and proper in light of
justice, equity and good conscience.And for this act of kindness of Your Lordships
the Appellant as duty bound shall ever pray.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT