Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission,1954 SCR 738; Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, 1955, 2SCR 1; Union of India v. T.R. Varma 1958 SCR 499, State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 SCR 595; and K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras, 1966(2) 229, held that Article 226 of the Constitution confers on all the High Courts a very wide power in the matter of issuing writs. However, the remedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted.

* * * *

9. ........, we hereby make it clear that the orders of the Commission are incapable of being questioned under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, as a statutory appeal in terms of Section 27-A(1)(c) lies to this Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation in issuing a direction of caution that it will not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts to entertain writ petitions against such orders of the Commission."

33. Another Division Bench of this Court in CIT vs. Chhabil Dass Agrawal, 2014(1) SCC 603 held: (SCC pp. 608-11, paras 11-13 and 15) "11. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious 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. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the 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 there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (See State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 1983(2) SCC 107, Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. 2003(2) SCC 107 and State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., 2005(6) SCC 499.

12. The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207, Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, AIR 1955 SC 425, Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882, State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86 and K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089 have held that though Article 226 confers very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ is absolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice or the procedure required for decision has not been adopted. [See N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422, Municipal Council, Khurai v. Kamal Kumar,AIR 1965 SC 1321, Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das, 1984(2)SCC 436, S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, 1988(1) SCC 572, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant,1995(5) SCC 75, Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, 2000(6) SCC 293, A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, 2000(7) SCC 695, L.L. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of A.P., 2001(6) SCC 634 Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra, 2001(8) SCC 509, Pratap Singh v. State of Haryana 2002(7) SCC 484 and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO. 2003(1) SCC 72.