The existence of another remedy does not prevent the exercise of judicial jurisdiction if the order is challenged for lack of jurisdiction: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that even if there is another remedy, a High Court can exercise its judicial jurisdiction if the order of the authority is challenged for lack of authority and jurisdiction, which is a pure question of law. . not to exercise judicial jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution if another effective and efficient remedy …
The Supreme Court observed that even if there is an alternative remedy, a High Court can exercise its judicial jurisdiction if the order of the authority is challenged for lack of authority and jurisdiction, which is a pure question of law. .
“While a High Court would not normally exercise its judicial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if another effective and effective remedy is available, the existence of another remedy does not in itself preclude the High Court to exercise jurisdiction in certain eventualities. “, the bench Judges DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed.
In this case, Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. had applied to the High Court to challenge the imposition of 1 “Bihar Electricity Law” or “Law 2” on electricity and the penalty on the electricity it supplied to the Authority National Electricity Authority of Bihar. The High Court refused to consider the summons request on two grounds: (i) the appellant has another legal remedy under section 9A of the Act; and (ii) the dispute involves questions of fact which are outside the judicial jurisdiction of the High Court.
The court referred to various decisions, including Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, to conclude that the existence of another remedy does not in itself preclude the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain eventualities. Exceptions to the alternative remedy rule arise, the court noted, when:
(a) the petition for writ has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution;
(b) there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice;
(c) the order or procedure is totally incompetent; Where
d) the rule of a law is contested
In that case, the court noted that the applicant’s main contention was that the state government did not have the power to levy a tax on its sale of electricity to BSEB. âThus, the means undermine the exercise of the competence of the Government. In view of the law mentioned above on the rule of the alternativey, “he said.
While returning the subpoena process to the High Court for a new disposition, the court observed:
The issues raised by the appellant are questions of law which require, after a careful reading of the Bihar Electricity Act, that it be determined whether a tax can be levied on the supply of electricity by a producer of electricity. electricity (which also manufactures sugar) supplying electricity to a distributor; and whether the first respondent has legislative jurisdiction to collect duties on the sale of electricity to an intermediary distributor given the decision of this Court in the State of PA (supra). The question of whether the appellant is required to file returns under Sections 6B (1) and 5A of the Act is directly related to the question whether the sale of electricity by the appellant to BSEB falls within the provisions pricing of Article 3 (1). The issues raised by the appellant can be decided without going into any factual dispute. Thus, the present case falls within the judicial jurisdiction of the High Court.
Reference: LL 2021 SC 495
Business name: Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. Bihar State
Case n Â° | Date: CA 5728 from 2021 | September 24, 2021
Coram: judges DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna
Counsel: Adv SK Bagaria for the appellant, Sr Adv Saket Singh for the State
Click here to read / download the judgment