Territorial limits and alternative remedy control Article 226 writ relief when statutory proceedings are already pending.

Article 226 writ power is territorially confined to persons or authorities within the High Court's jurisdiction, so the mere location of the Investigation Commission in Delhi did not by itself confer jurisdiction on the Punjab High Court. The Court also treated writ relief as discretionary and noted that, where an adequate statutory remedy has already been invoked and remains pending, it is proper to decline writ intervention at that stage. The abstract exclusivity of Section 8(5) was left open, but the pending statutory reference weighed against relief. On that basis, the refusal of writ relief was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Punjab High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writs merely because the Investigation Commission was located in Delhi. (ii) Whether the existence of the statutory remedy under Section 8(5) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 excluded or made it improper to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the Punjab High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writs merely because the Investigation Commission was located in Delhi.

Analysis: Article 226 confers wide writ powers on all High Courts, but those powers are exercisable only throughout the territories within their jurisdiction and only against persons or authorities located within those territories. The location of an appellate or supervisory authority, by itself, is not enough where the subject-matter and the effective operation of the proceedings lie elsewhere. The earlier Privy Council reasoning on the special facts of a rent-settlement case was not controlling for the constitutional writ jurisdiction created by Article 226.

Conclusion: The Punjab High Court had no jurisdiction on the facts as framed, and its view on this point was incorrect.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of the statutory remedy under Section 8(5) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 excluded or made it improper to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court left open the abstract question whether Section 8(5) was the exclusive remedy. In the circumstances of the case, however, Article 226 was a discretionary remedy, and the appellants had already pursued the statutory reference procedure, which was pending before the High Court of Allahabad. Where an adequate or suitable alternative remedy is available and has in fact been invoked, it is proper to decline writ relief at that stage.

Conclusion: The discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised in favour of the appellants in view of the available and pending statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the High Court's refusal to grant writ relief was sustained, and the orders dismissing the petitions were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is territorially confined and discretionary, and may properly be declined where an adequate statutory remedy exists and has already been pursued.

---