Court order directing a government official to do his job/duty


The Legal Terms Glossary defines over of the most common legal terms in easy-to-understand language. Terms are listed in alphabetical order and can be better accessed by choosing a letter here:. Affidavits must be notarized or administered by an officer of the court with such authority. Essentially, the defendant is admitting that the evidence is sufficient to show guilt.


We are searching data for your request:

Court order directing a government official to do his job/duty

Employee Feedback Database:
Leadership data:
Data of the Unified State Register of Legal Entities:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Content:
WATCH RELATED VIDEO: Nastya learns responsibility using a to-do list

When Franklin Roosevelt Clashed With the Supreme Court—and Lost


The High Court has such jurisdiction as is conferred on them by the Constitution or by law Art. Article of the Constitution of deals with the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Courts. It provides for the issuing of directions and orders by the High Courts to any person or authority in the country, prohibiting, commanding, calling in question acts done or intended to be done by such person or authority, in specified circumstances.

In fact, the jurisdiction to issue these orders is analogous to the jurisdiction of issuing the well-known prerogative writs, which have not been mentioned by their traditional names of the writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto and habeas corpus. The effect of omission of the traditional names of the writs has been calculated to give to the court a wider scope to issue a particular direction, because the court would not be bound in the issuance of such direction to restrict itself to the rigid rules applicable to prerogative writs.

The original and appellate jurisdiction of the High Courts provided by such pre-Constitution laws as the Criminal Procedure Code, , and the Code of Civil Procedure, as available to the High Courts before coming into force of Constitution was continued by the Constitution. The High Courts make rules for the guidance of the lower civil and criminal courts Art.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Courts hear appeals from the decisions of the subordinate civil courts and the District Judges' courts. A second appeal under the Code lies to the High Court on a question of law or on the ground of a substantial error or defect in procedure in the first appellate court. As an appellate court, the High Court has the power to determine the case finally, to remand to frame issues and refer them for trial, to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken as it may deem fit.

The position under the Constitution was however changed. The basic content of each form of writ has been set out at length in the Constitution itself, probably in order to define with certainty the limits within which the courts could act. The Constitution of followed the scheme of the Constitution of which gave Extraordinary Jurisdiction to the High Courts as follows Subject to this Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law-.

It is clear from above, that without using their technical names, the writs of prohibition and mandamus were provided by Clause 2 a i , the writ of certiorari by Clause 2 a ii ,. The fact that the writs had not been mentioned by their technical names, has been interpreted by the courts as giving wider jurisdiction to the courts and not restricting them to the limited circumstances in which a particular writ could issue.

The wide interpretation and liberal attitude of the courts in this respect was indicated in a case where the petition had been drawn up inartistically and ending abruptly without even a formal prayer; the relief was spelled out by the courts itself by reading the petition in free and liberal manner. Despite the view of courts that the new jurisdiction under Art. An order of mandamus is a direction issued to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction of the High Court requiring them to do some specific thing therein particularised, and which appertains to their office of duty.

Its object usually is to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. A mandamus could not confer a new authority and is neither a law nor a source of law. The person claiming a mandamus, in order to be entitled to receive it must at least have a clear legal right to the performance by the respondent of the particular duty sought to be enforced and in the case of a public officer the duty must be one which is clearly defined, imposed or enjoined by law as a duty resulting from the office.

A right found purely on private contract, however clear it might be, is not enforceable by mandamus. The Article gives to the High Court jurisdiction to issue an order of prohibition where a Court or Tribunal other than the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Court or a Tribunal established under the law relating to Defence Services acts in excess of or without jurisdiction.

In case of quasi-judicial proceedings generally an order of prohibition does not issue. It is issued only against a Court or a judicial body which though may not be called a Court but has been created specifically under a statute. The office of an order of prohibition is primarily supervisory having for its object the confinement of courts and tribunals of peculiar, limited or inferior jurisdiction within their bounds.

Usurpation of power will be restrained by it. Therefore order of prohibition can issue to an inferior tribunal when it is proceeding with a matter which is beyond the jurisdiction of that Tribunal. An order under this article may be issued only to a body acting judicially or quasi judicially because Certiorari lies in all cases where there is a duty to act judicially or where there is a judicial act or order or when the proceedings are judicial or quasi-judicial.

Quo warranto is the remedy or proceeding whereby the Court inquires into the legality of the claim which a party asserts to an office or franchise, and to oust him from its enjoyment if the claim be not well founded to have the same forfeited, and to recover it if having once been rightfully possessed and enjoyed, it has become forfeited for misuser or nonuser.

Provided it is a substantive corporate office of a public nature, and the person proceeded against is in actual possession and use of the office in question.

The Court must be satisfied that no other equally efficacious, equally expeditious and equally inexpensive adequate remedy is provided by law before it issues order. Any indulgence to the contrary by the High Court would be calculated to create distrust in statutory tribunals of competent jurisdiction and to cast an undeserved reflection on their honesty and competency and thus to defeat the intention of the legislature.

Where a petitioner claims protection of a right, which is entirely the creation of a statute, it is all the more imperative on him to exhaust the remedies provided by the statute before he comes to the High Court.

The question whether a remedy is adequate or not depends on the facts of each case. The adequacy of the remedy must be judged in relation to. In cases of absence or excess of jurisdiction an alternative remedy was not considered an adequate remedy for the reasons that it was necessary to give a quick relief in such cases against orders which were nullity in the eye of law. Similarly, the question of other adequate remedy being available is of no consequence for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus where liberty of person is involved.

The plea of want of adequate remedy is not available where the difficulty in pursuing that remedy was created by the petitioner himself, as for instance, when the petitioner has been negligent or has made a representation to any authority which had no jurisdiction to hear it.

Under the terms of the Constitution the directions and orders of the High Courts could only be made on the application of an aggrieved party. A person cannot be said to be an aggrieved party within the meaning of Art. However, for the issue of an order of quo warranto, the petitioner need not necessarily be an aggrieved party. The same is the rule for an order of habeas corpus; it may be filed by any person other than the person detained. Different pleas cannot be taken at different times, so as to support more than one petition on the same facts.

The general principles of res judicata are based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. Where, therefore, a Judge of the High Court has finally decided on the merits the contentions raised in a previous writ petition, the High Court will not allow the same contentions to be re-agitated in subsequent litigation. However, in case of a petition for habeas corpus, the principle of res judicata is not applicable.

A petitioner must come to the Court with clean hands, that is, he must not attempt to mislead the court by misrepresentation or suppression of facts in his petition or supporting affidavit. Delay in the filing of a petition or Laches has been regarded as a relevant factor in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court.

When a petition was filed more than three years after the passing of the impugned order, the delay was held amounting to acquiescence.

Where a plea of continuous wrong can legitimately be urged by the petitioner, the objection to a petition on the basis of laches cannot be sustained. The courts are normally reluctant, when hearing petitions, to enquire into questions of fact, especially when such enquiry was likely to be protracted. The courts were also normally reluctant to listen to points not mentioned in the petition or affidavit and raised for the first time at the hearing. The basis of this rule is that orders made under this Article are issued for the purpose or correction of errors in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction and since superior courts are entitled to credit from other courts for acting within their own jurisdiction, the question of issue of a writ to them would not arise.



Role of Writs In Administrative Law

Having described the machinery of the Constitutional Court, let us now examine in detail the functions of the Court, which are outlined in general terms by the Constitution and by constitutional laws. Legislative acts cover not only statutes enacted by Parliament, but also delegated legislative decrees decreti legislativi delegati, enacted by the Government pursuant to authority delegated by Parliament , decree-laws decreti-legge, emergency decrees adopted by the Government which expire unless converted into permanent law by Parliament , and laws issued by the Regions and the Autonomous Provinces, which have their own legislative power in the Italian constitutional system. By contrast, enactments that are subordinate to statutes, such as administrative regulations, are not subject to direct constitutional review by the Court, but are instead subject to review for conformity with statutes by the ordinary courts. Insofar as statutes must conform to the Constitution, and regulations must conform to statutes, such regulations should also conform to the Constitution, without there being any need for constitutional review of the regulations themselves by the Court. As is generally the case with all judges, the Constitutional Court is not free to decide autonomously which questions to examine, but must be called on to do so through specific procedures. Who is authorised to apply to the Court to pass judgement on the constitutionality of a law?

A Member of the Court deciding to resign shall communicate his decision to the Before entering upon their duties, assessors shall make the following.

Constitution of the United States

Executive power in the Russian Federation shall be exercised by the Government of the Russian Federation. The Government of the Russian Federation shall consist of the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation, deputy chairmen of the Government of the Russian Federation and federal ministers. The Russian Federation - Russia is a democratic federative law-governed state with a republican form of government. Man, his rights and freedoms shall be the supreme value. The recognition, observance and protection of human and civil rights and freedoms shall be an obligation of the State. The bearer of sovereignty and the sole source of power in the Russian Federation shall be its multinational people. The people shall exercise its power directly, as well as through State government bodies and local self-government bodies.


The Judiciary

court order directing a government official to do his job/duty

The Filipino people, imploring the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a government that shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of the nation, promote the general welfare, and secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of independence under a regime of justice, liberty, and democracy, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution. Section 1. The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, the limits which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington between the United States and Spain on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred, and the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty, and all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction. The Philippines, is a republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is a highest judicial body of constitutional supervision in the Russian Federation, exercising judicial powers by way of administering constitutional justice with the aim to protect the basis of the constitutional system, basic human and civil rights and freedoms, ensuring supremacy and direct effect of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on the entire territory of the Russian Federation. Composition and establishment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

Legal systems in the Russian Federation: overview

About Us. Cause List. E-Filing Guide. Hon'ble The Chief Justice. Hon'ble Judges. Hon'ble Judges Elevated to Supreme Court.


2022 California Rules of Court

UK, remember your settings and improve government services. We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services. You can change your cookie settings at any time. We are based in London. Most cases are heard by district judges and a senior judge but can sometimes be heard by High Court judges.

Tasks: 8. after the probable cause hearing, send the evaluation order to respondent's attorney. Trial- At the trial, the jury will make.

About Judges and Judicial Officials

A writ of mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion. See, e. Cheney v. United States Dist.


The Judicial Branch

RELATED VIDEO: Roiling the Waters: Clean Water Act “Navigable Waters” Definition

The High Court has such jurisdiction as is conferred on them by the Constitution or by law Art. Article of the Constitution of deals with the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Courts. It provides for the issuing of directions and orders by the High Courts to any person or authority in the country, prohibiting, commanding, calling in question acts done or intended to be done by such person or authority, in specified circumstances. In fact, the jurisdiction to issue these orders is analogous to the jurisdiction of issuing the well-known prerogative writs, which have not been mentioned by their traditional names of the writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto and habeas corpus. The effect of omission of the traditional names of the writs has been calculated to give to the court a wider scope to issue a particular direction, because the court would not be bound in the issuance of such direction to restrict itself to the rigid rules applicable to prerogative writs. The original and appellate jurisdiction of the High Courts provided by such pre-Constitution laws as the Criminal Procedure Code, , and the Code of Civil Procedure, as available to the High Courts before coming into force of Constitution was continued by the Constitution.

The term writ refers to a formal, legal document that orders a person or entity to perform or to cease performing a specific action or deed.

Power to Issue Writs: The Act of 1789

This resource is periodically updated for necessary changes due to legal, market, or practice developments. Significant developments affecting this resource will be described below. What's on Practical Law? Show less Show more. Ask a question. Legal systems in the Russian Federation: overview.

Articles amended since 1 July are marked in this volume with an asterisk and appear in their amended form, with an indication of the date when the amendment entered into force. Subsection 1. The Members of the Court. Article 1.


Comments: 3
Thanks! Your comment will appear after verification.
Add a comment

  1. Britto

    I consider, that you are not right. I am assured. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.

  2. Austen

    You realize, what have written?

  3. Ogdon

    If I were you, I would have acted differently.

+