The Revival of Ray XLI

We are reminded of the weighty observation of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770.

“We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the Court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognisance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed.”

The observations made, as quoted above, need not to be read as laying down a law that in any case subsequent event cannot be considered for moulding the relief in a Writ Petition under Article 226.”

Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan, Ram Chandra Prasad Singh v. Sharad Yadav, [Civil Appeal No. 2004 of 2020].

My Lord, Judges in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu, (1975) 1 SCC 770?

Three. Hon’ble Judges K.K. Mathew, V.R. Krishna Iyer. Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray.