Mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the high court and render a writ petition “not maintainable”. In a long line of decisions, this Court has made it clear that availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the “maintainability” of a writ petition and that the rule, which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy provided by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law,” the division bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Dutta observed recently.

Passing the order in )M/S Godrej Sara Lee Limited v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others, the Supreme Court observed that dismissal of a writ petition by a high court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper.

The Court acknowledged that it is true that the exercise of writ powers in a case where an alternate remedy is available should not be made in a routine manner. However, the Court clarified that the mere fact that the petitioner before the High Court, in a given case, has not pursued the alternative remedy available to him/it cannot mechanically be construed as a ground for its dismissal.

For reading the full judgment please click on the below case title

M/S Godrej Sara Lee Limited v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others