Alternate remedy rule bars writ interference under Article 226 where no sufficient ground exists to bypass the appellate process.
A writ petition under Article 226 will ordinarily not be entertained where an efficacious alternate remedy is available, unless sufficient grounds exist to depart from that rule. On the facts stated, the pleadings did not disclose any adequate basis to bypass the appellate mechanism, so writ intervention was declined. The petitioner was relegated to the alternate remedy of appeal, with liberty to file it within the stated period, and the matter was disposed of without entertaining the writ petition at that stage.
Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an alternate remedy.
Analysis: The pleadings did not disclose any sufficient basis to depart from the settled practice of requiring exhaustion of alternate remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction. The petition was therefore not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy, with liberty to institute the appeal within the stated period.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at this stage and the petitioner was directed to pursue the alternate remedy of appeal.
Final Conclusion: The matter was disposed of by declining writ interference and by leaving the parties to work out their remedies before the appellate forum.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Article 226 will ordinarily not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is available, absent adequate grounds to depart from that rule.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
