1. The oft quoted Rule which, over the years has come to occupy an exulted position, of not entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India when an alternative efficacious remedy is available, is a Rule of self restraint and circumspection rather than a rule of law even though generally there are no limits on the jurisdiction of this Court while it acts under writ jurisdiction.

2. When an alternative efficacious remedy is shown, under which the processes or orders impugned can be tested, it is generally a rule of prudence and discipline that the parties are relegated to such remedies, rather than being continued under the umbra of the provisions of Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The normal exception to this rule is when manifest injustice, resulting from grave and material legal infirmity, patent on the face and plainly discernible, without requiring deep probe into the contextual facts, are established. However, Courts have always been cautious that the extraordinary power, vested constitutionally on superior Courts, is not used to set right all errors but only when such errors cause substantial injustice or flagrant