Article 226 territorial scope affirmed; discretionary writ relief refused where statutory remedy under Section 8(5) was invoked and pending.

Article 226 territorial jurisdiction extends throughout a High Court's territorial limits and requires the person or authority to be amenable by residence or location within those limits; applying that principle the Punjab High Court could have entertained writs in respect of the Investigation Commission proceedings. However, Article 226 is discretionary and may be refused where an adequate alternative statutory remedy exists; because the appellants had invoked the remedy under the Investigation Commission statute and a reference was pending, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Punjab High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs in respect of Investigation Commission proceedings located in Delhi and concerning assessees whose original assessments were in U.P.; (ii) Whether the remedy provided by Section 8(5) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, excluded or precluded the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 and whether relief should be refused because an alternative statutory remedy had been availed of.

Issue (i): Whether the Punjab High Court could issue writs under Article 226 in respect of Investigation Commission proceedings located in Delhi affecting assessees assessed in U.P.

Analysis: The Court examined the scope of Article 226 as conferring new and wide powers on all High Courts, subject to two limitations: the writs must operate throughout the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction, and the person or authority to whom the writ is directed must be within those territories and amenable to its jurisdiction by residence or location. The Privy Council decision in Parlakimedi was considered in context and distinguished on the basis that its reasoning arose from pre-Constitution limited prerogative-writ jurisdiction; subsequent constitutional provisions alter the territorial analysis. The Court held that jurisdiction must be determined by substance with reference to Article 226's territorial and amenability conditions rather than by rigid application of Parlakimedi.

Conclusion: The Punjab High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain writs in the present matter; the High Court's contrary conclusion based on Parlakimedi cannot be sustained. The conclusion is against the appellants on no substantive point of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 8(5) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, provides the sole remedy excluding Article 226 relief, and whether the High Court should decline to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction because the appellants have availed the statutory remedy.

Analysis: The Court observed that it was unnecessary to decide finally whether Section 8(5) wholly excludes Article 226; Article 226 is a discretionary remedy and a High Court may refuse to grant relief if an adequate alternative remedy exists. The factual position showed that the appellants had already invoked Section 8(5) and a reference under that provision to the High Court of Allahabad was pending. Given availability and invocation of the statutory remedy, and the discretionary nature of Article 226, it would be improper for the Court to exercise writ jurisdiction at this stage.

Conclusion: The Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 because an adequate alternative remedy under Section 8(5) had been availed and was pending; this conclusion operates against the appellants and supports dismissal of their appeals.

Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed; although the Punjab High Court's jurisdictional reasoning was set aside, the Court declined to grant discretionary relief under Article 226 in view of the alternative statutory remedy having been pursued, resulting in dismissal of the appeals without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court's power under Article 226 extends throughout the territorial limits of its jurisdiction and requires the person or authority to be amenable by residence or location within those limits; however, Article 226 remains discretionary and may be refused where an adequate alternative statutory remedy exists and has been properly invoked.

---