SC Deprecates HC For Interfering In Writ Jurisdiction When Alternate Remedy Exists

The Supreme Court of India recently held that High Courts should exercise their due care and caution while entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternate efficacious remedy exists.

Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard a writ petition filed by a borrower challenging an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act ordering auction by the bank. The High Court set aside the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

The Apex Court said that the instant matter did not require the interference of the High Court. The Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. 

Some of them are thus:
(i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question;
(ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure;
(iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and
(iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.