Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Normally, this Court will entertain a writ petition, if there is no other alternative efficacious remedy to the petitioner. In other words, the existence of an effective alternative remedy is normally a ground for dismissing the original petition in limine. No doubt, if an inferior authority commits any jurisdictional error, this Court has the power to interfere notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. But, the point to be decided is whether this Court is justified in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the face of the alternative remedies available to the petitioner in the case on hand. If this Court entertains writ petitions on the ground of jurisdictional error unmindful of the existence of an alternative remedy, I think this Court will be doing a great disservice to public interest. The efficacy of this Court has been considerably compromised owing to docket explosion. The Court's precious time should be preserved for those matters which this Court alone is competent to deal with. Even though the right to approach the apex Court in a fundamental right under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, it was held in Kanubhai Bhahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat 1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 310 that the petitioner should first approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instead of directly knocking at the doors of the apex Court at the first instance. In the said decision, it was held :