Art 226 | Writ Petition Shouldn't Be Normally Entertained If Alternative Remedy Available Under HC's Different Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that when an effective alternate statutory remedy exists before the High Court under a different jurisdiction, a writ petition becomes non-maintainable. “The principle, plainly, is that, if a remedy is available to a party before the high court in another jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction should not normally be exercised on a petition under Article 226…”, observed a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar while refusing to interfere with the Rajasthan High Court's decision which dismissed the Appellant's Writ petition as non-maintainable as there was an alternate remedy to seek reference before the High Court against the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal Act, 1962 (“Act”). Dismissing the Appeal, the Court clarified that “while deciding whether to entertain a petition under Article 226 bearing in mind the precedents in the field, a writ court ought to additionally notice the forum designated by the statute for the litigant to approach. This is necessary because the alternative forum that is provided by the statute has to be one which can dispense speedy and efficacious relief.” The case involved the confiscation of silver in 1992. The appellant's appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) in 2000 was partially successful, as his penalty was reduced, but the confiscation was upheld. He then delayed approaching the Rajasthan High Court until 2003, filing a writ petition instead of preferring a reference before the High Court against the CEGAT order. “Since the appellant had a remedy by way of a reference before the High Court against the order dated 23rd June, 2000 of the CEGAT, we do not consider refusal to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant to be so fundamentally incorrect that interference is warranted.”, the court said pointing that “the appellant having had a remedy before the High Court in a separate jurisdiction which was equally efficacious, he indulged in the (mis)adventure of invoking its writ jurisdiction which was rightly not entertained.” The Court's decision was supported by the two constitution bench judgments of Thansingh Nathmal v. A. Mazid, Superintendent of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419 and A. V Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506, where it was held that “once a petitioner has due to his own fault disabled himself from availing a statutory remedy, the discretionary remedy under Article 226 may not be available.” Cause Title: RIKHAB CHAND JAIN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1129Click here to download judgmentAppearance: For Appellant(s) : Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, AOR Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dhananjai Shekhwat, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Adv. Ms. Pearl Pundir, Adv. Mr. Dashrath Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) :Mr. Raghavendra P.Shankar, A.S.G. Mr. Amit Sharma-ii, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

Art 226 | Writ Petition Shouldn't Be Normally Entertained If Alternative Remedy Available Under HC's Different Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Art 226 | Writ Petition Shouldn't Be Normally Entertained If Alternative Remedy Available Under HC's Different Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers