Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Authorized Officer, State Bank Of ... vs Mathew K.C. on 30 January, 2018
In Authorised Officer, State Bank of
Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC 85] the Apex
Court reiterated that the discretionary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not absolute but has
to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in
accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be
entertained if alternative statutory remedies are available,
except in cases falling within the well-defined exceptions as
observed in Chaabil Dass Agarwal, i.e., where the statutory
authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of
the enactment in question or in defiance of the fundamental
principles of judicial procedure or has resorted to invoke the
provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been
passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.
Thansingh Nathmal And Ors vs A. Mazid, Superintendent Of Taxes on 3 February, 1964
After referring to the law laid down in Thansingh Nathmal v.
Superintendent of Taxes [AIR 1964 SC 1419] and
Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Orissa
[(1983) 2 SCC 433] the Apex Court held that High Court will
not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if
an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved
7
W.P.(C) No.15761 of 2021
person or the statute under which the action complained of
contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. Therefore,
when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of
grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring
the statutory dispensation.
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 13 April, 1983
After referring to the law laid down in Thansingh Nathmal v.
Superintendent of Taxes [AIR 1964 SC 1419] and
Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Orissa
[(1983) 2 SCC 433] the Apex Court held that High Court will
not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if
an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved
7
W.P.(C) No.15761 of 2021
person or the statute under which the action complained of
contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. Therefore,
when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of
grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring
the statutory dispensation.
Balkrishna Ram vs Union Of India on 9 January, 2020
In Balkrishna Ram v. Union of India [(2020) 2
SCC 442] one of the issues raised before the Apex Court was
whether an appeal against an order of a single judge of a High
Court deciding a case related to an Armed Forces personnel
pending before the High Court is required to be transferred to
the Armed Forces Tribunal or should be heard by the High
Court. The Apex Court held that sub-section (1) of Section 14
of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 clearly provides that
9
W.P.(C) No.15761 of 2021
the Armed Forces Tribunal will exercise powers of all Courts
except the Supreme Court or High Court exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Section 34 is very carefully worded. It
states that 'every suit', or 'other proceedings' pending before
any Court including a High Court immediately before the
establishment of the Tribunal shall stand transferred on that
day to the Tribunal. The Legislature has clearly not vested the
Armed Forces Tribunal with the power and jurisdiction of the
High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the
Constitution. There can be no manner of doubt that the High
Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction even in respect of
orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. Since an appeal
lies to the Supreme Court against an order of the Armed
Forces Tribunal, the High Court may not exercise their
extraordinary writ jurisdiction because there is an efficacious
alternative remedy available but that does not mean that the
jurisdiction of the High Court is taken away. In a given
circumstance, the High Court may and can exercise its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction even against the orders of the
High Court [sic: Armed Forces Tribunal].
Union Of India vs T. R. Varma on 18 September, 1957
9. In Balkrishna Ram the Apex Court held that the
principle that the High Court should not exercise its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction when an efficacious alternative
remedy is available, is a rule of prudence and not a rule of law.
The Writ Courts normally refrain from exercising their
extraordinary power if the petitioner has an alternative
efficacious remedy. The existence of such remedy however does
not mean that the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted. At
the same time, it is a well settled principle that such jurisdiction
should not be exercised when there is an alternative remedy
available - Union of India v. T.R. Varma [AIR 1957 SC
882]. The rule of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and
not a rule of jurisdiction. Merely because the Court may not
exercise its discretion, is not a ground to hold that it has no
jurisdiction. There may be cases where the High Court would be
justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction because of some
glaring illegality committed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. One
must also remember that the alternative remedy must be
efficacious and in case of a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO),
or a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO); to expect such a
person to approach the Supreme Court in every case may not
11
W.P.(C) No.15761 of 2021
be justified. It is extremely difficult and beyond the monetary
reach of an ordinary litigant to approach the Supreme Court.
Therefore, it will be for the High Court to decide in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of each case whether it should exercise
its extraordinary writ jurisdiction or not.
L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 18 March, 1997
There cannot be a
blanket ban on the exercise of such jurisdiction because that
would effectively mean that the Writ Court is denuded of its
jurisdiction to entertain such writ petitions which is not the law
laid down in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3
SCC 262].
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 14 in The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 August, 2013
In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil
Dass Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Court held
that non-entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative
remedy is available is a rule and 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 of the
Constitution of India, despite the existence of alternative
remedy. However, 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 exists sufficient
ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article