Judgments on maintainability of the writ petition in the

presence of alternate remedy

1. State Of U.P. & Anr vs U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam, 2008

Para 38: It has been so held even by this Court in several cases that even if alternative
remedy is available, it cannot be held that a writ- petition is not maintainable. In our
judgment, however, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is
admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. If such bald
contention is upheld, even this Court cannot order dismissal of a writ petition which
ought not to have been entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution in view of the availability of alternative and equally efficacious remedy to
the aggrieved party, once the High Court has entertained a writ-petition albeit wrongly
and granted the relief to the petitioner.

2. M/S.Hindustan Petroleum ... vs Geetha Kasturirangan, 2010

Para 14: In some cases the Supreme Court held that Court can refuse to
entertain writ petition when there is an effective alternate remedy. The said principle
cannot be applied universally and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each
case and discretion is given to the Courts either to entertain or not to entertain
the writ petition, even if alternate remedy is available. Thus, the contention of the
appellants that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained by the learned
single Judge and the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground
of availability of alternate remedy cannot be sustained. The learned single Judge has
rightly overruled the said objection raised by the appellant and decided the matter on
merits. We fail to see any reason to differ with the said findings.

3. Dr. Pradeep Jain. vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 3 January, 1991

Para 19: It is, however, emphasized that whenever a plea regarding availability

of alternative efficacious remedy to the petitioner is raised by the respondents, it is
always necessary that such a plea should be raised before the Court at the very
inception of the arguments as a preliminary objection, and the Court should be
requested to decide that objection first before entering into the merits of the case.
Much injustice is likely to be caused when a writ petition is allowed to be fully argued on
its merits and during reply to the arguments, the question of availability
of alternative remedy to the petitioner is raised by the respondents, alongwith their
arguments on the merits of the case. In the above-mentioned exceptional circumstances
of the case, I am of the view that this Court should exercise its discretion in deciding
this writ petition on merits, and I proceed to decide it on its merits.

4. Mrs. Sanjana M. Wig vs Hindustan Petro Corporation Ltd on 15

September, 2005

judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vis-a-vis availability

of alternative remedy writ petition is maintainable when it involves public law
character and when the forum chosen by the parties would not be in a position
to grant appropriate relief.

5. Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and another Vs. Jabar Singh and
others, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 112

as a matter of course the High Court should not entertain

the writ petition when the alternate remedy is available under the statute. The
judgment reads thus:- (Head Note-E) "E. Constitution of
India- Art.26- Alternative remedy- Available under statute- High Court should not
ordinarily entertain the writ petition except where a very strong case is made out
for departure from the general rule

6. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Limited vs Union Of India on 30 September, 2022

Para 11: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh and Ors., while considering the question of maintainability of a writ petition in
the presence of an alternative remedy, had held as follows:

27. The principles of law which emerge are that: 27.1. The power under Article 226 of
the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of
fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. 27.2. The High Court has the
discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power
of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved
person.

7. M/S Radha Krishan Industries vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20

April, 2021
 Author: Hon'Ble Dr. Chandrachud
Bench: Hon'Ble Dr. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah

23 We shall now review the position of law on the questions before us. C.1
Maintainability of writ petition before the High Court 24 The High Court has dealt with
the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Relying on the
decision of this Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others v
Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited20, the High Court noted that although
it can entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it must not do so
when AIR 2020 SC 2819  PART C the aggrieved person has an effective alternate
remedy available in law. However, certain exceptions to this “rule of alternate remedy”
include where, the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of
the law or acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; or has
resorted to invoke provisions, which are repealed; or where an order has been passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice. Applying this formulation, the High Court
noted that the appellant has an alternate remedy available under the GST Act and thus,
the petition was not maintainable. 25 In this background, it becomes necessary for this
Court, to dwell on the “rule of alternate remedy” and its judicial exposition. In Whirlpool
Corporation v Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai21, a two judge Bench of this Court after
reviewing the case law on this point, noted:

“14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary
in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be
exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the
Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other
purpose”.

IMP:

(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised
not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as
well;

(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the
restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate
remedy is available to the aggrieved person; (2003) 2 SCC 107  PART C

(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has
been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the
Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c)
the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a
legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a
writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is
provided by law;

(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or
procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular
statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy,
convenience and discretion; and

(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide
to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objective of
the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ
jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.