ANNAMARY Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Establishing a legal right is a pre-condition for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of establishing any semblance of legal right, no writ can be entertained nor any direction can be issued to the public authorities.

(2.) A mere direction sought for to consider the representation cannot be a point for this Court to entertain a writ petition. Mostly, such directions are sought for in order to create a cause of action by the litigants. Filing of a writ petition and obtaining an order of direction to consider the representation cannot be a ground for constituting or creating further cause of action to continue the litigation or to acquire a right. Under such circumstances, necessarily this Court has to go into the point whether the writ petitioner has established any legal right or not. The orders of the High Court are to be implemented by the authorities as it is and mostly such an idea of getting an order is to create a cause of action and to continue further litigations or to acquire further rights by virtue of any such directions that was issued by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioners pursued this Court appealingly by stating that the writ petitioners are poor, landless and belong to socially backward communities. This Court is certainly convinced with the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. However, this Court cannot act on misplaced sympathy or by showing leniency which is in contravention with the legal principles settled by the Apex Court of India.