Cases dealing with Maintainability of Petitions When Alternative/Efficacious remedy exists under other laws
1. M/S Maa Durga Enterprises versus The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority and Others
High Court of Bihar
DOJ 10.07.2015 – Held, that High Court has held that appeal against complaint filed before District Forum lies to State Commission and Petition is not maintainabl
2. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India 2011 14(SCC) 337 has held that Petitioner must exhaust its alternative remedy before the State Commission and should not directly come to High Court for challenging judgment of District forum
3. Hon’ble Apex Court recently in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agrawal[(2014) 1 SCC 603 Has held that when the statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, the writ petition should not be entertained ignoring statutory dispensation subject to certain exceptions. The Hon’ble Apex Court further opined that non-entertainment of petitions under the writ jurisdiction by the High Courts where efficacious or alternative remedy is available, is a rule of self- imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. The Hon..ble Apex Court has also opined that undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or if there is sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
4. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa,(1983) 2 SCC 433 Court held that In the provenance, of tax where the Act provides for a complete machinery which enables an assessee to effectively raise in the courts the question of the validity of an assessment denied an alternative jurisdiction to the High Court to interfere under Constitution. The phrase “made under the Act” describes the provenance of the assessment; it does not relate to its accuracy in point of law. The use of the machinery provided by the Act, not the result of that use, is the test. Under the scheme of the Act, there is hierarchy of authorities before which the Petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful act complained of. They have the right to prefer an appeal before the prescribed authority If they are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer a further appeal to the Tribunal under sub-s. (3) of s. 23 of the Act, and then ask for a case to be stated on a question of law for the opinion of the High Court under Sec 24 of the Act. Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Art 226 of the Constitution
5. Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,(2003) 2 SCC 107 – Held that rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged.