Exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy

(1) The Supreme Court has clearly held that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. It has been held that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. The Court clearly observed that, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues,etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. It has been held that, though the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are of widest amplitude, still the Courts cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court. The Court further held that though the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, still it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2) The Supreme 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(iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and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.

United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others (2010) 8 SCC 110 : 2010 INSC 428, Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and Others (2024) 2 SCC 1 : 2023 INSC 838 and South Indian Bank Limited and Others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and Another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 435 : 2023 INSC 379, Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603 followed