Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Alternate Remedy Not Absolute Bar - The existence of an efficacious statutory remedy (such as section 107 or other appeal/revision processes) does not automatically bar the High Court from entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Courts can exercise their jurisdiction in exceptional cases where principles of natural justice are violated or where statutory remedies are inadequate or ineffective. ["Shivesh Singh, S/o. Late Shri Samar Jeet Singh VS Swarnlata, Wd/o. Late Jitendra Kumar Sahu - 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 676"], ["Namdeo Apparao Chate VS State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary - Bombay"], ["Committee of Management, Jubilee Sanskrit College Ballia VS State of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2077"], ["Vijay Kumar VS Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda - Allahabad"], ["Brij Bala Rana VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Ajay Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Ramavtar Gupta VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad"], ["Sajaul Hasan VS Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. - Delhi"], ["A. S. Sandhu VS Union of India - Punjab and Haryana"]
Discretionary Nature of Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court has discretion to entertain or dismiss writ petitions even when alternate remedies are available, especially if there are compelling reasons such as arbitrariness, violation of fundamental rights, or procedural irregularities. The courts have emphasized that the rule of non-entertainment in the presence of alternate remedies is a self-imposed discipline, not an absolute prohibition. ["Shivesh Singh, S/o. Late Shri Samar Jeet Singh VS Swarnlata, Wd/o. Late Jitendra Kumar Sahu - 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 676"], ["Namdeo Apparao Chate VS State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary - Bombay"], ["Jagdish VS State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supply Lko. - Allahabad"], ["Brij Bala Rana VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Vijay Kumar VS Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda - Allahabad"], ["Committee of Management, Jubilee Sanskrit College Ballia VS State of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2077"], ["Ajay Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["A. S. Sandhu VS Union of India - Punjab and Haryana"]
Exceptions to the Rule - The Supreme Court and High Courts have identified specific exceptions where a writ petition may be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy. These include cases involving violation of natural justice, patent illegality, or where statutory remedies are not efficacious or are otherwise inadequate. ["Shivesh Singh, S/o. Late Shri Samar Jeet Singh VS Swarnlata, Wd/o. Late Jitendra Kumar Sahu - 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 676"], ["Jagdish VS State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supply Lko. - Allahabad"], ["Brij Bala Rana VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Ajay Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Vijay Kumar VS Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda - Allahabad"], ["A. S. Sandhu VS Union of India - Punjab and Haryana"]
Summary and Conclusion - While generally, courts prefer that litigants exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226, this is not an absolute rule. The courts recognize that in certain circumstances—such as violations of natural justice, arbitrariness, or fundamental rights—they may bypass the alternative remedies and entertain writ petitions. This approach balances judicial discretion with respect for statutory procedures, ensuring that justice is not denied due to procedural technicalities. ["Shivesh Singh, S/o. Late Shri Samar Jeet Singh VS Swarnlata, Wd/o. Late Jitendra Kumar Sahu - 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 676"], ["Namdeo Apparao Chate VS State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary - Bombay"], ["Ramavtar Gupta VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad"], ["Committee of Management, Jubilee Sanskrit College Ballia VS State of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2077"], ["Sajaul Hasan VS Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. - Delhi"], ["A. S. Sandhu VS Union of India - Punjab and Haryana"]
In the realm of Indian constitutional law, one common dilemma for litigants is whether to approach the High Court directly via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when statutory alternatives exist. The question often arises: Availability of Alternative Remedy through Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 – does it bar the writ entirely, or can exceptional circumstances justify bypassing it?
This blog post delves into the judicial stance on this issue, drawing from landmark Supreme Court and High Court decisions. While Article 226 grants High Courts broad powers to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights and other purposes, courts typically urge parties to exhaust statutory remedies first. However, this is not an absolute rule. We'll explore the nuances, exceptions, and practical guidance to help you understand when a writ might be maintainable.
Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The legal position, as established through multiple judicial pronouncements, is clear: the existence of an alternative statutory remedy is generally not an absolute bar to filing a writ petition under Article 226Shivesh Singh, S/o. Late Shri Samar Jeet Singh VS Swarnlata, Wd/o. Late Jitendra Kumar Sahu - 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 676Maharashtra Chess Association VS Union of India - 2019 7 Supreme 313. High Courts exercise discretion, often declining petitions in ordinary cases to encourage use of efficacious statutory channels, particularly for disputes involving disputed questions of fact or contractual rightsCommittee of Management, Jubilee Sanskrit College Ballia VS State of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2077Moran M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews II VS State Of Kerala - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 455.
Courts emphasize restraint, insisting parties pursue statutory remedies unless exceptional circumstances warrant intervention. As held in key cases:- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of TrademarksJupiter Exports VS Commissioner of Gst - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 3011: Unless exceptional circumstances exist, exhaust statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.- Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel LimitedM/s V K A Constructions vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 10936: Article 226 powers are plenary, but restraint is preferred when alternatives are effective.
This approach prevents High Courts from becoming overburdened with matters better suited for specialized forums.
Writ petitions under Article 226 are typically entertained in extraordinary situations. Courts have consistently outlined exceptions where bypassing alternative remedies is justified:
For instance, in Gopilal Teli v. StateLaxman Singh Verma VS State of Rajasthan - 1999 0 Supreme(Raj) 738, the High Court intervened despite alternatives, holding that orders wholly without jurisdiction or breaching natural justice justify writ relief. Similarly, Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. VS Union of India (Through the Secretary) Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 904 explicitly states: But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.
High Courts exercise particular caution with disputed questions of fact or purely contractual disputes. In ITC Ltd. v. Union of IndiaKarnagam VS Jayaseelam Chettiar - 1976 0 Supreme(Mad) 199, the Court ruled that such issues should be resolved through statutory mechanisms, not writs. Companies Act cases involving oppression or mismanagement also follow this, as remedies under the Act are deemed effective Ramdas Motor Transport LTD. VS Tadi Adhinarayana Reddy - 1997 5 Supreme 29.
The discretion hinges on facts: Is the alternative remedy efficacious? Are there exceptional circumstances? RANJANA SAXENA VS PRABHASH SAXENA - 1997 0 Supreme(Del) 532Bhupen Daimary, S/O- Haren Daimary VS Union Of India And Represented By The Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, New Delhi - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1112
Recent cases reinforce this balanced approach, integrating statutory preferences with constitutional safeguards.
In a Rajasthan GST matter Tanushree Logistics Private Limited VS State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur - 2022 Supreme(Raj) 823, writs challenging assessment orders were dismissed for maintainability issues, as alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 existed. The court noted: The main legal point... writ petitions challenging assessment orders may not be maintainable if an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available, unless there is... violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioners were directed to appeal, with limitation benefits.
Conversely, in an Income Tax challenge SRS Mining Represented by its Partner, K. Rethinam VS Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Government of India, New Delhi - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 2509, writs succeeded despite alternatives due to fundamental rights violations (Articles 14, 19, 21) and natural justice breaches. The court upheld: Writ petitions maintainable despite availability of alternative remedies; cases of violation of fundamental rights warrant judicial intervention under Article 226.
Delayed adjudication under Cenvat Credit Rules Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. VS Union of India (Through the Secretary) Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 904 was quashed as violating natural justice: Delayed adjudication of stale show cause notices is bad in law and violates procedural fairness. The writ was allowed, overriding appeals.
In hate speech proceedings Brinda Karat VS State of NCT of Delhi - 2022 Supreme(Del) 463, writs were dismissed, upholding statutory processes under CrPC Section 156(3), absent exceptional bars.
Agricultural Income Tax writs B. D Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. VS State of West Bengal - 2022 Supreme(Cal) 191 failed as they didn't qualify under exceptions: The availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar... but the instant writ petitions did not fall within the exceptional circumstances.
These examples illustrate courts' judicious exercise: dismiss ordinary cases, intervene in constitutional breaches Laxman Singh Verma VS State of Rajasthan - 1999 0 Supreme(Raj) 738M/s V K A Constructions vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 10936.
Article 226's wide ambit is tempered by judicial restraint. Courts clarify: General rule – exhaust statutory remedies; exceptions for fundamental issues Bhupen Daimary, S/O- Haren Daimary VS Union Of India And Represented By The Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, New Delhi - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1112RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS UNION OF INDIA - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 792. The summary judicial approach:
Before filing under Article 226:- Assess if an efficacious statutory remedy exists.- Reserve writs for exceptional cases like constitutional violations.- Demonstrate why alternatives are ineffective/inadequate.- Courts may direct statutory pursuit even if writ filed Tanushree Logistics Private Limited VS State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur - 2022 Supreme(Raj) 823.
In conclusion, while Article 226 offers powerful remedies, the principle of exhausting statutory alternatives is well-entrenched. High Courts wield broad discretion, generally favoring statutory paths but stepping in for violations of fundamental rights, natural justice breaches, jurisdictional excesses, or vires challengesShivesh Singh, S/o. Late Shri Samar Jeet Singh VS Swarnlata, Wd/o. Late Jitendra Kumar Sahu - 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 676Maharashtra Chess Association VS Union of India - 2019 7 Supreme 313Laxman Singh Verma VS State of Rajasthan - 1999 0 Supreme(Raj) 738M/s V K A Constructions vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 10936.
Key Takeaways:- Alternative remedies are not absolute bars but strong persuasive factors.- Success in writs demands clear exceptional circumstances.- Always weigh options to avoid dismissal and costs.
Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence to navigate these complexities effectively. For tailored advice, reach out to legal experts.
(Word count: approx. 1050)
#Article226, #WritPetition, #LegalRemedies
The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226#HL_E....
alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising it’s jurisdiction in certain contingencies. ... does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious al....
An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 27.5. ... Under Article 226 ....
While a High Court would normally not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available, the existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies ... It is more ....
She further added that there can be no absolute bar, in entertaining the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore the petition is maintainable. ... High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should #HL_STAR....
An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. ... Accordingly, the bar of alternat....
The respondent had a statutory remedy under Section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Const....
It is, thus, submitted that in the wake of availability of alternate remedy, the writ petition may not be entertained and the petitioner be relegated to the statutory alternate remedy available. 6. The submissions of Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. ... In view of the above, since the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy of....
The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. ... The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article#HL....
not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; (v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself ... State of Himachal Pradesh 2021 SCC Online SC 334 has concluded that there is....
Instead of availing of the remedy, the Respondent instituted a petition Under Article 226. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is:
But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent institu....
The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is:
Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
