Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1 All Ghaziabad Development Authority V. R.C. Saxenaand others 445
provided, the High Court should ensure that
he has made out a strong case or that there
exist good grounds to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction.
9. In Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil
Corpn. Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107, the Supreme
Court reiterated the same principles and
held that the rule of exclusion of writ
jurisdiction by availability of alternative
remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of
compulsion and the Court must consider the
pros and cons of the case and then may
interfere if it comes to the conclusion that
the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of
the fundamental rights where there is a
failure of the principles of natural justice or
where the orders or proceedings are wholly
without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged.
10. It is also well settled in the case of
U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and
others vs. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S.
Karamchari Sangh (2004) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 268 and other cases that it would
need a very strong case indeed for the High
Court to deviate from the principle that
where a specific remedy is given by the
Statute, the person who insists upon such
remedy can avail of the process as provided
in that Statute and in no other manner.
11. In the case of A.P.Foods vs. S.
Samuel and others (2006) 5 S.C.C. 469, the
Supreme Court reiterated the same
principles and held that a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
should not be entertained when the statutory
remedy is available under the Act, unless
exceptional circumstances are made out.
Misra (Dr.) Vs. Gorakhpur University
(2000) 1 UPLBEC 702 that since writ
jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction
hence if there is an alternative remedy the
petitioner should ordinarily be relegated to
his alternative remedy. This is specially
necessary now because of the heavy arrears
in the High Court, and this Court can no
longer afford the luxury of entertaining writ
petitions even when there is an alternative
remedy in existence. No doubt alternative
remedy is not an absolute bar, but ordinarily
a writ petition should not be entertained if
there is an alternative remedy.
13. Considering the aforesaid
decisions, a division bench of this Court has
again held in the case of Nanhe @ Indra
Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009
(2) ACR 2349, that no writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution should be
entertained when statutory remedy is
available under the concerned statute unless
exceptional circumstances propounded in
Whirlpool's case (supra) are made out.
14. As already discussed, the Act is a
complete code in regard to redressal of
grievances (complaints) of the consumer
and also in regard to appeal and revision
against the order passed by the State
Commission and other authorities, and as
such the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, which is a discretionary jurisdiction,
should not be invoked in such matters.
15. In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition is not maintainable and is
accordingly dismissed with costs.
---------
12. Expressing a serious concern over
the heavy arrears in this court, a Division
Bench of this Court held in Manvendra