The High Court should not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution particularly when an alternative statutory remedy is available – PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Ors. – Supreme Court
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
(i) It could thus be seen that the Court has strongly deprecated the practice of entertaining writ petitions in such matters. It can thus be seen that it is more than a settled legal position of law that in such matters, the High Court should not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution particularly when an alternative statutory remedy is available.
(ii) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question;
(iii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure;
(iv) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and
(v) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.
(vi) It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance.