New Delhi, Feb 12 (UNI) In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that writ courts do not interfere in cases of mere statutory violations unless such violations result in injustice.
Relying on the precedent set in Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana, (1980) 2 SCC 437, the Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan emphasized that legal principles must be tempered with equity.
The Court observed,“While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity, and if the equitable situation demands, after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mold the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.”
The Court reiterated that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court’s power to issue writs is discretionary. Even if an order is deemed invalid, the High Court can refuse to interfere if doing so serves the interests of substantial justice.
The case involved an auctioned property that had been mortgaged for a bank loan. After the borrower defaulted, the property was auctioned in 2007, with the appellant emerging as the successful bidder.
The borrower did not challenge the auction, but the guarantor later filed a writ petition claiming a statutory lapse—specifically, that the bank had not issued the required 15-day notice before auctioning the property. The High Court ruled in favour of the guarantor, declaring the auction illegal.
Aggrieved, the appellant moved the Supreme Court. The Court, while holding the respondent responsible for dragging the appellant into frivolous litigation over a technicality, refrained from imposing costs. The Bench criticized the High Court for focusing solely on procedural lapses rather than considering the practical realities of the case:
“The High Court should have taken a practical view of the matter, considering that the auction had attained finality way back in 2007.”
The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and upholding the validity of the auction.
