SC: Existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar HC from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies

  

A 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, and B.V. Nagrathna, has ruled in the judgment of the case- M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. the State of Bihar & Others, delivered on September 24, 2021, that the existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies.

Recently, in the judgment of the case of Radha Krishen Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others- 2021 SCC OnLine SC 334, a two-judge bench of the SC (with Justice Chandrachud on it) has summarized the principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the HC in the presence of an alternate remedy. The SC has observed:

“28. The principles of law, which emerge are that:

(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 HC has discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the HC is where an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person;

Read also : It breaks the back of litigants & kills justice: SC urges courts to get out of ‘adjournment culture’ [Read Order]

(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 principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are whole without jurisdiction, or (d) the vires of legislation is challenged;

(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the HC of its powers 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 statutory remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience, and discretion; and

Read also : SC: Labour Court’s Decision should not be based on Mere Hypothesis; Upholds Dismissal of Bank Employee in 33 year old case (Read Judgment)

(vi) In cases, where there are disputed questions of fact, the HC may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the HC 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.”

The Court noted that issues raised by the appellant are questions of law which require, upon a comprehensive reading of the Bihar Electricity Act, a determination of whether the tax can be levied on the supply of electricity by a power generator (which also manufactures sugar) to a distributor, and whether the first respondent- (State of Bihar) has the legislative competence to levy duty on the sale of electricity to an intermediary distributor in view of the decision of the SC in the case- State of AP v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. –(2002) 5 SCC 203. The questions raised by the appellant can be adjudicated without delving into any factual dispute. Thus, the present case is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the HC.

The SC has stated that the HC erroneously declined to entertain the writ petition and it would be appropriate to restore the proceedings back to the HC for fresh disposal. The SC has left the case open for fresh evaluation by the HC. The SC has allowed the appeal, set aside the HC’s judgment of September 18, 2017, and restored the case to the file of the Patna High Court.

Read Order;