It is seen that in the normal course, High Courts are treated as last resort. They are supposed to be approached only when there is no other option left. The same is in pursuance of the Indian constitution. However, the same has been analysed by various courts and element of “discretionary power of HC” has been emphasized.
It was held by the SC in the order related to State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited that despite the existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the HC to grant relief under the Constitution. This implies that the existence of an alternative remedy doesn’t result in a mandate for HC to reject the writs.
The HC has the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that suitable and adequate relief is available elsewhere. However, there are certain exceptions laid down whereby Writ can be resorted to even though the alternative remedies have not been exhausted. Such exceptions bring within their ambit the cases where,
1. Natural justice is denied since in such cases, the presence of alternative remedies would be a mirage and an exercise in futility.
2. Secondly, cases where the taxing authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess.
If HC entertains a Writ, it is not justified on the part of HC to dismiss the same due to non-exhaustation of statutory remedies unless it finds that factual disputes are involved. Hence, the entertaining of Writs by HC is within its discretion, which is based on whether natural justice is denied or there exists lack of jurisdiction with the authortites, if alternative remedies are sought.
