Recently, in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. {(2011) 2 SCC 782; decided on 07.02.2011} hon™ble Supreme Court has observed as follows (in para 21):
21. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the appellants under Section 17 of the Act. It is well-settled that ORDINARILY RELIEF UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS NOT AVAILABLE IF AN EFFICACIOUS ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE TO ANY AGGRIEVED PERSON. (See: Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 524; Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 675; State Bank of India Vs. Allied Chemical Laboratories & Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 252). In City and Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshi Bhiwandiwala & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 168, this Court had observed that: “The Court WHILE EXERCISING ITS JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 IS DUTY-BOUND TO CONSIDER whether:
a. adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
b. the petition reveals all material facts;
c. the PETITIONER HAS ANY ALTERNATIVE OR EFFECTIVE REMEDY FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE;
d. person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
e. ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
f. grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.” (capitals supplied)
Author:
Narendra Sharma, Consultant (Legal)
E-mail: nkdewas@yahoo.co.in
