Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by three Advocates as a Public Interest Litigation, impugns:-

(1) Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;

(2) Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961;

(3) Section 18 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997;

(4) Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992;

(5) Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969;

(6) Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002;

(7) Section 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007;

(8) Section 22 of the National Green Tribunals Act, 2010;

(9) Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003; and,

(10) Section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013 all providing for statutory appeal, against the order of the apex adjudicatory fora constituted under each of the said legislations, to the Supreme Court, on the ground of the same violating the basic structure of the Constitution of India by overriding powers of judicial review conferred upon the High Courts by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. The petition came up before us first on 7th May, 2014 when we, referring to Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee Vs. C.K. Rajan (2003) 7 SCC 546 holding that ordinarily the High Court should not entertain a writ petition by way of a PIL, questioning the constitutionality or validity of a statute or a statutory rule, enquired the locus of the petitioners to maintain the challenge. On request of the counsel for the petitioners the matter was adjourned to 27th August, 2014.

3. The counsel for the petitioners on 27th August, 2014, on the aspect of maintainability of the petition relied on paras 24, 141 and 609 of S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149. We, besides entertaining doubts as to the locus of the petitioners to maintain the petition, having also entertained doubts as to the merits of the petition, particularly in the light of our recent judgment in Bela Rani Bhattcharyya Vs. Union of India, holding that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution though not barred by the Competition Act, 2002, was not maintainable in view of the remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court provided vide Section 53T of the Act, heard the counsel for the petitioners on the aspect of admission and reserved judgment.

4. However on deeper consideration of the matter while dictating judgment, we felt that:-

(a) the proposition, that the power of judicial review conferred on the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution is no longer res integra in the light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261;

(b) in the light of the aforesaid though the Supreme Court in Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India (2011) 14 SCC 337 has held that Article 226 being a basic feature of the Constitution cannot be curtailed by Parliamentary legislation but nevertheless further held that it is one thing to say that in exercise of power vested in it under Article 226 the High Court can entertain a writ petition and it is an altogether different thing to say that each and every petition filed under Article 226 must be entertained by the High Court as a matter of course, ignoring the fact that the aggrieved person has an effective alternative remedy, it was further held that inspite of availability of alternative remedy, the petition under Article 226 can be entertained where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order under challenge is wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of the statute is under challenge;

(c) however applying the aforesaid proposition, the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603 held that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the said exceptional grounds also if an effective alternative remedy is available to