SC:Presence of alternative efficacious remedy not a bar on writ jurisdiction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 4th December 2019, in the matter of M/s Shiur Sakhar Karkhana Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank Of India pronounced that the presence of an alternative and efficacious remedy is not an absolute bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and is a rule of discretion and self-imposed limitation rather than that of law.

…….On appeal against ex parte orders of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commision

A plain reading of Section 21(a) (ii) read with Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 makes it clear that the National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the orders passed by the State Commission. Section 21(a)(ii) does not state that appeals cannot be entertained against orders that have been passed ex parte. The plain and simple meaning of the said provision is that appeals will be entertained by the National Commission against any order passed by the State Commission. (Para 5)

The word “orders” as used in Section 21(a)(ii) means and includes “any orders”. Thus, an order of the State Commission placing a particular party ex parte can also be questioned before the National Commission. (Para 5)

…….On presence of an alternative and efficacious remedy while invoking writ jurisdiction

The presence of an alternative and efficacious remedy is not an absolute bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and is a rule of discretion and self-imposed limitation rather than that of law. (Para 7)

Copy of order: Order_04-Dec-2019

-Adv. Tushar Kaushik

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *