court cannot pass directions or orders under Article 142 against the statutory provisions

. In Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, (2017) 8 SCC 670 it is ruled the Supreme court cannot pass directions or orders under Article 142 against the statutory provisions. It is ruled as under;

“56.[….] The nation cannot live on a lie. Courts play a vital institutional role in preserving the rule of law. The judicial process should not be allowed to be utilised to protect the unscrupulous and to preserve the benefits which have accrued to an imposter on the specious plea of equity. The State law has been enforced from 18-10-2001. Judicial directions must be consistent with law. The directions which were issued under Article 142 were on the erroneous inarticulate premise that the area was unregulated by statute. Shalini [Shalini v. New English High 15 School Assn., (2013) 16 SCC 526: (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 265] noted the statute but misconstrued it.”

6.6. Needless to mention here that the ratio laid down in the case of Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, (2001) 7 SCC 549 & Dr. L.P. Mishra Vs. State of UP (1998) 7 SCC 379 are upheld by the Constitution Bench in the case of Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI, (2012) 10 SCC 603