https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171207 The High Court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioners failed to establish a legal or constitutional right to invoke writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized the need for transparency and public interest in managing public property, highlighting that continued occupation without valid approval or tenancy agreement did not warrant relief. The court underscored the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and the importance of not creating legal rights through mandamus. The petitioners' reliance on pending applications and performance reports did not grant them the right to continue occupying the premises. en-us Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:14:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171207 The High Court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioners failed to establish a legal or constitutional right to invoke writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized the need for transparency and public interest in managing public property, highlighting that continued occupation without valid approval or tenancy agreement did not warrant relief. The court underscored the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and the importance of not creating legal rights through mandamus. The petitioners' reliance on pending applications and performance reports did not grant them the right to continue occupying the premises. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171207