Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In ACC's case the High Court followed the view expressed in Gujarat Ambuja's case relating to levy of purchase tax on royalty paid. High Court's judgments are assailed in these appeals on various grounds.

Firstly, it is submitted that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the `Constitution') when alternative remedy was available under the Central Act and the State Sales Tax Act, if the respondents were aggrieved by the revisional orders. Several factual controversies were involved and the High Court was not justified in holding that no factual controversy was involved. Whether the exemptions claimed were available in the factual background needed factual adjudication and, therefore, the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition.

In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the revisional authority had clearly acted without jurisdiction. There was really no factual dispute involved and in essence the challenge related to the question whether on a bare reading of the concerned Notifications/Government Orders the exemptions claimed by the writ petitioners were originally allowed. The competent authority had considered the relevant aspects and the benefits had been granted. They should not have been withdrawn by the revisional authority in the manner done. It was clearly indicated in the writ petitions as to why the available statutory remedies would have an exercise in futility. It was clearly mentioned and substantiated by materials as to why the writ petitioners had become victims of a political vendetta. The political parties and persons who had let loose a smear campaign against the writ petitioners were in power and the subordinate authorities would have been in no position to give justice to the writ petitioners contrary to their dictates. The authorities recorded conclusions which clearly show the bias and preconceived notions. The conclusions were pre-determined. In that background, the writ petitions were filed and were entertained. The High Court has elaborately dealt with every relevant aspect and it has not been shown as to how the High Court's judgments suffer from any infirmity. Further, this Court should not interfere since the High Court had entertained writ petitions indicating reasons why the writ petitions were entertained when alternative remedy was available.

Stand of the respondents on the other issues was to the effect that the submissions of the appellants do not carry any weight and have been made overlooking the factual and legal position. The submissions completely overlook the essence of the notifications and are based on misreading them.

We shall first deal with the plea regarding alternative remedy as raised by the appellant-State. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction.

If, as was noted in Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR (1985) SC 1147 the appeal is from "Caeser to Caeser's wife" the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. In the instant case the writ petitioners had indicated the reasons as to why they thought that the alternative remedy would not be efficacious. Though the High Court did not go into that plea relating to bias in detail, yet it felt that alternative remedy would not be a bar to entertain the writ petition. Since the High Court has elaborately dealt with the question as to why the statutory remedy available was not efficacious, it would not be proper for this Court to consider the question again. When the High Court had entertained a writ petition notwithstanding existence of an alternative remedy this Court while dealing with the matter in an appeal should not permit the question to be raised unless the High Court's reasoning for entertaining the writ petition is found to be palpably unsound and irrational. Similar view was expressed by this Court in First Income-Tax Officer, Salem v. M/s. Short Brothers (P) Ltd., [1966] 3 SCR 84 and State of U.P. and Ors. v. M/s. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., [1977] 2 SCC 724. That being the position, we do not consider the High Court's judgment to be vulnerable on the ground that alternative remedy was not availed. There are two well recognized exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies. First is when the proceedings are taken before the forum under a provision of law which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that they are incompetent without a party being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course. Secondly, the doctrine has no application when the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. We may add that where the proceedings itself are an abuse of process of law the High Court in an appropriate case can entertain a writ petition.