Writ jurisdiction and alternative remedy: challenge to arrest and alleged fundamental rights breach justified maintainability at the threshold.

A writ petition challenging arrest, alleged mala fides, and breach of fundamental rights was held maintainable at the threshold despite the availability of an alternative remedy. The court noted that the grievance was not limited to alleged non-compliance with Section 41A CrPC, but extended to the manner and legality of arrest. The ordinary rule against entertaining writ jurisdiction where another remedy exists is not absolute, and it yields where the petition seeks enforcement of fundamental rights and the controversy warrants immediate judicial scrutiny. Notice was directed to the respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of an alternative remedy, in view of the challenge to arrest and alleged violation of fundamental rights.

Analysis: The petitioner's grievance was not confined to an alleged non-compliance with Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but also included a challenge to the manner of arrest, alleged mala fides, and breach of fundamental rights. The general rule that a writ petition is ordinarily not entertained where an efficacious alternative remedy exists does not operate as an absolute bar. An exception arises where the petition is founded on enforcement of fundamental rights, and the nature of the controversy justifies exercise of writ jurisdiction at the threshold stage.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held maintainable at this stage for issuance of notice to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Availability of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the petition alleges violation of fundamental rights and seeks judicial scrutiny of the legality of arrest.

---