2022 (4) TMI 761 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - power of judicial review - refund claim alongwith interest - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Preferring an appeal is the rule. Entertaining a Writ Petition before exhausting the appellate remedy is an exception. Undoubtedly, writ proceedings may be entertained before exhausting the appellate remedy. However, it is to be ensured that there is an imminent threat or gross injustice warranting urgent relief to be granted. Mere violation of principles of natural justice is insufficient to entertain a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as every Writ Petition is filed based on one or the other ground stating that the principles of natural justice is violated or statutory requirements are not complied with or there is an illegality or otherwise. Thus, dispensing with an appellate remedy is to be granted cautiously in view of the fact that the very purpose and object of legislation providing an appellate remedy cannot be diluted nor the benefit be denied to the aggrieved person to exhaust the same. The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to scrutinize the processes through which a decision is taken by the competent authority by following the procedures as contemplated, but not the decision itself. Therefore, the routine entertainment of a Writ Petition by dispensing with appellate remedy is not preferable and such an exercise would cause injury to the institutional hierarchy and the importance attached to such appellate institutions - the finding of such appellate forums would be a valuable assistance for the purpose of exercise of judicial review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry with reference to the facts and circumstances based on the documents and evidences. Based on the mere affidavits filed by the litigants, the disputed facts cannot be concluded. Thus, the importance of fact finding by the appellate forums is of more value for the purpose of providing complete justice to the parties approaching the Court of law. The point of delay may be an acceptable ground for the purpose of entertaining a Writ Petition. The practise of filing the Writ Petition without exhausting the statutory remedies are in ascending mode and such Writ Petitions are filed with a view to avoid pre-deposits to be made in statutory appeals and on the ground that the appellate remedies are time consuming. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the competent authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in a prescribed format and in the event of receiving any such appeal, the Appellate authority shall consider the same without reference to the delay in filing and dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law and by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-original dated 11-11-2016 regarding interest on refunded amount; Entertaining writ petition before exhausting appellate remedy; Power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Importance of appellate forums in fact-finding and judicial review; Acceptable grounds for delay in filing writ petition.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a challenge to an order-in-original dated 11-11-2016, specifically regarding the entitlement to interest on a refunded amount. The petitioner had deposited the amount as per court orders and sought interest on the deposit. However, the court emphasized that the appellate authority is the final fact-finding body and must adjudicate on the right to interest based on evidence and documents presented. The High Court cannot directly grant such relief without the appellate authority's decision.

Regarding the procedure of entertaining a writ petition before exhausting the appellate remedy, the court highlighted that filing an appeal is generally the rule, and writ petitions are exceptions granted in cases of imminent threat or gross injustice. The court stressed the importance of appellate remedies and the finality of fact-finding by appellate authorities. It cautioned against routinely bypassing appellate forums, as this could undermine their expertise and hierarchy, affecting the judicial review process.

The judgment underscored the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that it scrutinizes the decision-making process, not the decision itself. The court reiterated the significance of appellate forums in fact-finding, expertise, and providing valuable assistance for judicial review. It emphasized that the High Court cannot conduct a detailed inquiry based solely on affidavits, highlighting the importance of fact-finding by appellate bodies.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the issue of delay in filing writ petitions without exhausting statutory remedies. The court noted an increasing trend in such practices to avoid time-consuming appellate processes. It allowed the petitioner to prefer an appeal within four weeks, directing the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits without considering the delay, providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present additional representations and explanations along with relevant judgments.

In conclusion, the judgment disposed of the writ petition with directions for the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the importance of appellate forums in fact-finding and judicial review processes for the effective administration of justice.