- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Alternate Remedy: Writ Petition Can...
Alternate Remedy: Writ Petition Can Be Dismissed Even After Admission, Clarifies Chhattisgarh HC
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
29 Sept 2022 1:30 PM IST
The Chhattisgarh High Court has made it clear that there is no such rule that a writ petition, once admitted, cannot be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.A bench of Justices Arup Kumar Goswami and Deepak Kumar Tiwari observed "as a proposition of law it cannot be countenanced that once a writ petition is entertained and admitted, the same cannot be dismissed...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has made it clear that there is no such rule that a writ petition, once admitted, cannot be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
A bench of Justices Arup Kumar Goswami and Deepak Kumar Tiwari observed "as a proposition of law it cannot be countenanced that once a writ petition is entertained and admitted, the same cannot be dismissed on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy at the time of hearing."
The instant writ appeal was preferred against the order of a Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant on ground that there was an alternative remedy available.
Both the Appellant and Respondent had applied for the post of 'Angwanwadi Karyakarta'. Though the petitioner was declared successful in the selection process, the Collector had set aside his appointment on an appeal made by the Respondent. Aggrieved thereof, the Petitioner had approached the writ court.
After admitting the plea, the Writ court relegated the Petitioner to avail alternative remedy. Hence, this appeal.
The Petitioner relied on Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. & Anr v. Principal Secretary, Govt. of UP & Ors., where the Supreme Court had held that the High Court having entertained the writ petition, in which pleadings were also complete, ought to have decided the case on merits instead of relegating the parties to a civil suit.
The State on the other hand argued that there is no proposition in law that once a writ petition is admitted, the petitioner cannot be asked to avail alternative remedy. It was further submitted by respondent that facts and circumstances of each individual case will determine whether the Court would decide the writ petition or the petitioner would be asked to avail alternative remedy.
The High Court concurred with the State's submissions. It observed that the findings in Durga Enterprises (supra) were based on the fact that the writ petition was pending for a long period of 13 years.
Similarly, in State of UP v. UP Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti, it was observed that issuance of rule nisi or passing of interim orders is a relevant consideration for not relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedy if it appears to the High Court that the matter could be decided by a writ Court.
However, in both these cases, the High Court observed, the Supreme Court did not lay down as a proposition that invariably whenever a writ petition is admitted, it has to be heard on merit and the writ Court cannot exercise discretion to relegate the petitioner to avail alternative remedy.
In light of the above, the writ appeal was dismissed.
Case Title : Mangali Mahinag v Sushila Sahu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 71
