Blog

In an IntraCourt Mandamus appeal, interference is usually warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya after considering the respective submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. It was held through the learned bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biswanath Somadder, Chief Justice, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh in the case of Biolin Kurbah Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr [WA No.11/2021] on 01.10.2021.

The instant writ appeal arose in respect of a judgment and order dated 9th December 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.466 of 2018. A plain reading of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the learned Single Judge heard out the matter extensively after an exchange of affidavits as observed by the Hon’ble High Court.

The learned advocate representing the appellant (being the writ petitioner) essentially reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge. He also took the court through the relevant documents including the letter of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) dated 12th January 2017, addressed to the appellant/writ petitioner, and her reply dated 21st January 2017.

On the other hand, the learned advocate representing HPCL has also taken the court through various documents including HPCL‟s letter dated 29th March 2017, whereby, the appellant/writ petitioner was categorically informed regarding her letter dated 21st January 2017, wherein she had mentioned that the plot offered by her had a frontage of 125 meters, which was not matching with the frontage of the plot as given in her original application, sketch map as well as the lease deed.

After considering the respective submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9th December 2019, the court stated that “All the points which have been raised before us have been meticulously considered by the learned Single Judge and have been extensively dealt with in the impugned judgment and order. In an IntraCourt Mandamus appeal, interference is usually warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed. On a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such infirmity or perversity. Rather, we find that judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. There is no doubt – in the fact of the instant case – that the appellant/writ petitioner, by her representation dated 21st January 2017, was essentially seeking to redefine the original land dimensions and the same cannot come within the meaning of permitted rectification or an additional document. The learned Single Judge has even taken note of this fact, as also the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner, having participated in the evaluation conducted by a Land Evaluation Committee (LEC), had not raised any objection to its finding and as such it cannot be held that the concerned authority had acted unreasonably or arbitrarily in rejecting the application of the appellant/writ petitioner.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj