Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2) Certiorari will be issued when although the Tribunal has jurisdiction it acts illegally by denying the right to be heard or by violating principles of natural justice.
(3) Certiorari will be issued where there is an error apparent on the face of record.

6. It is also a well settled rule of law that remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, in general, is discretionary. The High Court would refuse to grant it to a litigant when an equally convenient, beneficial and efficacious alternative remedy is open to him and he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ under Article 226. It is also well settled that in cases where the ordinary process of law appears to be inefficacious the writ court would be within its right to interfere even if other remedy is available as existence of another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction to issue a writ. In fact, the existence of another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction to issue a writ. In fact, the existence of an alternative remedy does not per se operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, though the existence of an alternative remedy is a circumstance which should be taken into consideration in the matter of invoking writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh, (AIR) 1958 SC 86, was clearly of the opinion that the rule of requiring the exhaustion of statutory remedies, before a writ is granted, is, however, a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Thus, despite existence of other remedy, certiorari may be granted where want of jurisdiction is complained of or there is violation of fundamental rights of a citizen. The various circumstances under which the failure to resort to statutory remedies could not be treated as precluding a party from asking for a writ, have been stated by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh (supra) as follows:

7. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohammad Nooh's case (supra), the question that requires consideration by us is, whether there is any infirmity or vice which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. In other words, we are required to decide whether the order sought to be challenged has been passed in the absence of jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice so as to shake our sense of fair play, justice or equity.

8. It is also well settled that this court under Article 226 will give relief to a litigant who comes to this court despite existence of an adequate alternative remedy where the litigant complains of violation of his fundamental rights. In the instant case, such a complaint is not there. There is no complaint that it is in violation of principles of natural justice. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of alternative remedy available to him, he can come to this court for redressal of his grievance as the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is not efficacious as before filing an appeal, the petitioner is required to deposit the amount of compensation awarded against the petitioner. This further needs to be determined as to in what circumstances the remedy available may be taken to be adequate or not and whether the grievance of the petitioner that he will be required to deposit the amount of compensation before filing the appeal is a circumstance which is sufficient to give a ground to the petitioner to avoid the existence of alternative remedy. We may illustrate some of the grounds where the remedy itself may not be adequate, for example, where the appellate authority whose order is impugned has acted under the general or special direction of the appellate authority, it would be futile to drive a party to an alternative remedy where it is a case of an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. It may be a case where the appellate or the revisional authorities are merely departmental Tribunals composed of persons belonging to the departmental hierarchy without adequate legal training and background and whose glaring lapses occasionally come to the notice of the court, as observed by the Supreme Court in Mohammad Nooh's case, (supra).