Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be excluded by private forum clauses; alternate remedies remain only a discretionary factor.

A private society agreement or bye-law cannot oust a High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226, because that constitutional power cannot be contracted away. An alternate remedy or forum-selection clause may be relevant to the court's self-imposed restraint, but it does not create an absolute legal bar to writ relief. The High Court must consider the nature of the grievance, available remedies, and whether writ intervention is appropriate on a holistic assessment. The impugned judgment was therefore set aside and the writ petition restored for fresh consideration on merits and discretion.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a private agreement in the Constitution and Bye Laws of a society can oust the writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution; (ii) whether the existence of an alternate forum or contractual stipulation conferring jurisdiction on another court creates an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether a private agreement in the Constitution and Bye Laws of a society can oust the writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

Analysis: A private arrangement cannot abrogate the constitutional power of a High Court to issue writs. The power under Article 226 is part of the constitutional scheme of judicial review and is exercised in aid of the rule of law. While parties may, in a civil dispute, validly choose one among courts having proper jurisdiction, such a stipulation cannot exclude constitutional writ jurisdiction altogether. A clause purporting to do so cannot be treated as a complete ouster of the High Court's authority to examine whether writ relief should be entertained.

Conclusion: The private agreement could not oust the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of an alternate forum or contractual stipulation conferring jurisdiction on another court creates an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction

Analysis: The existence of an alternate remedy is only a factor relevant to the High Court's self-imposed restraint under Article 226. It is not a rule of law creating an absolute bar. The High Court must assess the facts holistically and decide whether to entertain the petition, taking into account the nature of the grievance, the availability of other remedies, and whether exercise of writ jurisdiction is appropriate. A contractual forum clause may be relevant to that discretion, but it cannot compel the High Court to decline jurisdiction as a matter of law. The impugned judgment erred in treating the forum clause as determinative without such consideration.

Conclusion: The existence of an alternate forum did not create an absolute legal bar to writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was restored for fresh consideration on merits and discretion.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual forum-selection clause and the availability of an alternate remedy may inform but cannot extinguish a High Court's constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226, which remains discretionary and must be exercised on a holistic assessment of the facts.

---