Writ intervention in insolvency proceedings was unwarranted where the statutory remedy under the Insolvency Code was already pursued.

Article 226 relief was found unwarranted where the grievance arose from insolvency proceedings governed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which provides a complete remedial framework. Because the property owner had already approached the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 60(5), the writ petitioner lacked direct locus in the insolvency process. The public interest litigation was treated as an attempt to interfere with the statutory insolvency mechanism rather than a genuine exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, and it ought to have been rejected at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court ought to have entertained the public interest litigation and granted interim relief when the grievance arose in the context of insolvency proceedings and the owner of the property had already approached the statutory forum under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The invocation of Article 226 was found to be unwarranted because the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provides a complete framework of forums and remedies, and the owner of the land had already moved the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 60(5). The petitioner in the writ proceedings had no direct locus in the insolvency process. In these circumstances, the public interest litigation was treated as an attempt to obstruct the statutory insolvency process rather than as a genuine invocation of constitutional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The public interest litigation was an abuse of process and ought to have been rejected at the threshold.

---