2022 (11) TMI 1471 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal before the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal under Section 101 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules 2003 - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/S RADHA KRISHAN INDUSTRIES VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ORS. 2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT has been held that The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal therefore no case is made out for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Deputy Registrar Co-operate Society, availability of alternative remedy of appeal before Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, applicability of principles of law under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Court of Deputy Registrar Co-operate Society, Tonk. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, it was noted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal under Section 101 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003 against the same order dated 23.06.2022. The court referred to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Article 226 can be exercised for any purpose, but one of the restrictions is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person.

The Supreme Court also highlighted exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy, such as enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of legislation. It was clarified that an alternate remedy does not automatically deprive the High Court of its powers under Article 226, but in general, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy exists. The court further emphasized that when a right is created by statute with a prescribed remedy, that remedy should be exhausted before resorting to Article 226. Additionally, in cases involving disputed facts, the High Court may decline jurisdiction in a writ petition, unless it deems the controversy necessitates its writ jurisdiction.

In light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, the High Court concluded that the writ petition should be dismissed as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 23.06.2022. Therefore, the court found no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.