https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97551 Article 226 cannot be used to enforce a disputed private contractual claim arising in liquidation, quash a lease that is not itself a judicial or quasi-judicial order, or compel a statutory authority to exercise discretion in a particular manner. The writ court also cannot direct dispossession of an existing lessee and restore possession to another party on the basis of an alleged contractual right where the claimant has no clear writ foundation. The lease in favour of the appellant, having already been registered and acted upon, could not be displaced through summary writ proceedings. The challenge to the lease and the District Judge's orders therefore failed, and the writ petition was held not maintainable for the reliefs sought. en-us Mon, 28 Oct 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:08:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97551 Article 226 cannot be used to enforce a disputed private contractual claim arising in liquidation, quash a lease that is not itself a judicial or quasi-judicial order, or compel a statutory authority to exercise discretion in a particular manner. The writ court also cannot direct dispossession of an existing lessee and restore possession to another party on the basis of an alleged contractual right where the claimant has no clear writ foundation. The lease in favour of the appellant, having already been registered and acted upon, could not be displaced through summary writ proceedings. The challenge to the lease and the District Judge's orders therefore failed, and the writ petition was held not maintainable for the reliefs sought. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 28 Oct 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97551