In an Intra-Court Mandamus appeal, interference is usually warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed: Sikkim High Court

While exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot continue illegalities, irregularities or improprieties based on what evidently was a vague plea. The Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim before The Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan held such an opinion regarding Jyoti Agrawal Vs. State Of Sikkim & Ors. [WA No. 06/2021]. 

The facts of the case were related to a judgment and order passed by the Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 56 of 2018 (Jyoti Agarwal Vs. State of Sikkim and Ors) dated 16th August, 2021. The said impugned order was dismissed. It was asked before the learned judge if the Writ Petitioner’s degree of M.A. Mathematics from the EIILM University of Sikkim was a valid degree or not. Regarding the said question the Single Judge stated that “In conclusion, the Petitioner has failed to make out her case for recognition of her Degree in M.A. (Maths) from the EIILM University as legal, genuine and valid for all purposes. Devoid of any merit, the Petition deserves to be and thus stands dismissed.” 

The Hon’ble Court after going through all the submissions held that the facts found in the instant case the learned judge did not find any infirmity or perversity. It was also stated by The Hon’ble Judge that impugned judgment was supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. Therefore, after thorough consideration, The Hon’ble Court ruled out that “For reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the instant writ appeal, which is liable to be dismissed and stands accordingly dismissed along with IA No.02 of 2021.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *