Can SC Interfere With HC's Discretion Entertaining Writ Petition In Spite Of There Being Alternative Remedy? SC Bench Delivers Split Judgment [Read Judgment]
Live LawCan the Supreme Court interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution to quash the order of the High Court, merely on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy? A two judge bench comprising of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee recently delivered a split judgment on the issue.Disagreeing with Justice Banumathi's order setting aside a judgment of the High Court on the. Disagreeing with Justice Banumathi's order setting aside a judgment of the High Court on the ground of alternative remedy, Justice Banerjee observed that it is always a matter of discretion with the Court and if the discretion has been exercised by the High Court not unreasonably or perversely, it is settled practice of this Court not to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court. However, alternative remedy will not be a bar at least in three instances:- where writ petition is filed for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; where there is a violation of the fundamental right or principles of natural justice; and where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged; On the other hand, Justice Banerjee noted that the writ petition filed in 1987 had been pending in the High Court for about three decades and once the writ petition had been entertained and kept pending, it should not be rejected on the ground of existence of alternative remedy of appeal before the Board of Revenue. vs. Shantilal Chhotelal & Co. reported in AIR 1966 SC 197 and in State of U.P and Others vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd reported in 2 SCC 724, there is no rule of law that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition when an alternative remedy is available to a party.