The court outlined the discretion in maintaining writ jurisdiction despite alternate remedies, particularly where natural justice is involved.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging the resolution passed in the MIC meeting as communicated by the order of the Special Officer Building dated 27^th February, 2020, the order of the Special Officer Building dated 27^th February, 2020 and the communication dated 16^th July, 2020.

2. The respondent no. 6 has raised the point of maintainability of the writ application, on the ground that the order challenged in the writ application is appealable under Section 400 (3) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act

1980 and as such a writ is not maintainable.

3. Learned senior counsel Mr. Kar appearing from the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition is maintainable in this case as there has been violation of natural Justice and thus an abuse of process of law.

4. The following judgments have been relied upon by the petitioners in support of their said argument:-

i. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited vs Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr. , (2025) 4 SCC 1.

ii. Radha Krishan Industries vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (2021) 6 SCC 771.

5. Section 400 (3) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, lays down:-

“ Section 400 (3) KMC Act:-

Any person aggrieved by an order of the Municipal Commissioner made under sub-section (1) may, within thirty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal against the order to the Municipal Building Tribunal appointed under Section 415.”

6. Admittedly the order under challenge has been passed by the special officer building, who has been delegated as per clause 2 to Section 400 KMC Act.

7. From the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, it appears that, the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited vs Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr. , (Supra), has held as follows:-

“56. Following the aforesaid dictum, this Court in Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107] , had taken notice of the fact that the High Court had referred to the arbitration clause which the writ petitioner could take recourse to, to hold that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction is a rule of discretion and not of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of alternative remedy, the writ courts can exercise its jurisdiction at least in three contingencies, as referred to above. In the facts of the said case, this Court interfered observing that there were peculiar circumstances as the dealership had been terminated on an irrelevant and non-existence cause. Therefore, there was no need to drive the parties to initiate arbitration proceedings.

57. Following the judgments in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar, Trade Marks [Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar, Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1] and Harbanslal Sahnia [Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107], this Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. [Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771 : (2021) 88 GSTR 228] laid down the following principles : (Radha Krishan Industries case [Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771 : (2021) 88 GSTR 228] , SCC p.

795, para 27)

“27. The principles of law which emerge are that: 27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well.

27.2. The High Court has the discret