Existence Of Alternate Remedy Does Not Bar Exercise Of Writ Jurisdiction If Order Is Challenged For Want Of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that even if an alternate remedy exists, a High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction if the order of the authority is challenged for want of authority and jurisdiction, which is a pure question of law."While a High Court would normally not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available, the existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies.", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed.In this case, Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. had approached the High Court challenging the imposition of 1 "Bihar Electricity Act" or "the Act" 2 electricity duty and penalty on the electricity that it was supplying to Bihar State Electricity Board. The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition on two counts: (i) the appellant has an alternate statutory remedy under Section 9A of the Act; and (ii) the dispute involves questions of fact which are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.The bench referred to various decisions including Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh to hold that the existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise, the court noted, 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 challengedIn this case, the court noted that the petitioner mainly contended that the State Government does not have the power to levy tax on its sale of electricity to BSEB. "Thus, the plea strikes at the exercise of jurisdiction by the Government. In view of the law discussed above on the rule of alternate remedy", it said.While restoring the writ proceedings back to the High Court for a fresh disposal, the court observed:The issues raised by the appellant are questions of law which require, upon a comprehensive reading of the Bihar Electricity Act, a determination of whether tax can be levied on the supply of electricity by a power generator (which also manufactures sugar) supplying electricity to a distributor; and whether the first respondent has the legislative competence to levy duty on the sale of electricity to an intermediary distributor in view of the decision of this Court in State of AP (supra). The question of whether the appellant is liable to file returns under Sections 6B(1) and 5A of the Act is directly related to the issue of whether the sale of electricity by the appellant to BSEB falls under the charging provisions of Section 3(1). The questions raised by the appellant can be adjudicated without delving into any factual dispute. Thus, the present matter is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Citation: LL 2021 SC 495Case name: Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. State of BiharCase no. | Date: CA 5728 of 2021 | 24 September 2021Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV NagarathnaCounsel: Adv SK Bagaria for appellant, Sr. Adv Saket Singh for stateClick here to Read/Download Judgment

Existence Of Alternate Remedy Does Not Bar Exercise Of Writ Jurisdiction If Order Is Challenged For Want Of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Ashok KM

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Existence Of Alternate Remedy Does Not Bar Exercise Of Writ Jurisdiction If Order Is Challenged For Want Of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Ashok KM

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers