Dismissed¶37

Sudhakar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2025A227/4262/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternate remedy doctrine; Article 227 petition not entertained where statutory remedy available under Section 529 BNSS 2023; prayer for time-bound disposal of Discharge Application dated 10.06.2025 in Session Trial No. 285/2025 arising from FIR No. 0224/2022 PS Paraspur, District Gonda; Titaghur Paper Mills; Mafatlal Industries; Radha Krishan Industries; Whirlpool Corporation; Harbanslal Sahnia; dismissed as withdrawn with liberty; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:41150; Order dated 18.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the available statutory remedy (application under Section 529 of the B.N.S.S., 2023); Office directed to return the certified copy of the papers, if any, to learned counsel for the petitioner as per rules. ¶37

Sudhakar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Article 227 petition should be entertained despite the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 529 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 (preliminary objection of alternate remedy raised by learned A.G.A.). +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

It is undisputed that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing an application under Section 529 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Writ petitions should not be entertained where a statutory remedy is available to the litigant; the petitioner must therefore pursue the remedy under Section 529 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 instead of the Article 227 petition.

¶13

Key takeaways

On being confronted with the alternate-remedy objection, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the available remedy, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with that liberty.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Saurabh Lavania, J.) - Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Additional District and Session Judge / Fast Track Court (New), Gonda to decide a Discharge Application moved on 10.06.2025 in Session Trial No. 285 of 2025 (State versus Sudhakar Pandey), arising from F.I.R. No. 0224 of 2022, Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda, within a time-bound period. The learned A.G.A. raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a remedy under Section 529 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Relying on Titaghur Paper Mills (1983) 2 SCC 433, Mafatlal Industries (1997) 5 SCC 536 and Radha Krishan Industries (2021) 6 SCC 771, the Court held that where a statutory remedy is available, writ petitions should not be entertained. Confronted with this, counsel sought withdrawal; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the statutory remedy, and the Office was directed to return certified copies of papers, if any.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41150

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4262 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sudhakar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Chandra,Mansi Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following main relief (s) :-

¶7

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to

¶8

direct to the Learned Additional District and Session Judge / Fast Track Court (New) Gonda to decide the Discharge Application moved on 10.06.2025 in Session Trial No 285 / 2025 (State Versus Sudhakar Pandey) arises in the F.I.R. No.0224 / 2022 Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda (Contained as Annexure no. 1 with this petition) within time specified by this Hon'ble Court as earliest as possible.

¶9

Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed.

¶10

Allow the petition with costs in favor of the petitioner."

¶11

Learned A.G.A., at the very outset, raised a preliminary objection stating that the petitioner has a remedy under Section 529 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.

¶12

Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

¶13

It is undisputed that the petitioner is having a statutory remedy of filing application under Section 529 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. The law in this regard is well settled, as per which, the writ petitions should not be entertained, if there is a statutory remedy available to the litigant approaching the Court concerned.

¶14

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & another Vs. State of Orrisa and others, (1983) 2 SCC 433, has observed that where a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute must only be availed of. In paragraph 11 of the above report, the Court observed thus:-

¶15

"11. Under the scheme of the Act, there is a hierarchy of authorities before

¶16

which the petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of. The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer a further appeal to the Tribunal under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, and then ask for a case to be stated upon a question of law for the opinion of the High Court under Section 24 of the Act. The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton6 in the following passage:

¶17

"There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. . . . But there is a third class, viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it.... The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to."

¶18

The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. (1919 AC 368) and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant & Co. Ltd. (1935 AC 532) and Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. (AIR 1940 PC 105). It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine."

¶19

(emphasis supplied)

¶20

In the subsequent decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & others Vs. Union of India & others, (1997) 5SCC 536 , the Hon'ble Apex Court went on to observe that an Act cannot bar and curtail remedy under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution. The Court, however, added a word of caution and expounded that the constitutional Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise its jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. To put it differently, the fact that the High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not mean that it can disregard the substantive provisions of a statute and pass orders which can be settled only through a mechanism prescribed by the statute.

¶21

In a recent decision in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶22

"25. In this background, it becomes necessary for this Court, to dwell on

¶23

the "rule of alternate remedy" and its judicial exposition. In Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar, Trade Marks [Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar, Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court after reviewing the case law on this point, noted : (SCC pp. 9-10, paras 14-15)

¶24

'14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".

¶25

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.'

¶26

26. Following the dictum of this Court in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar, Trade Marks [Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar, Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1] , in Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107] , this Court noted that : (Harbanslal Sahnia case [Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107] , SCC p. 110, para 7)

¶27

'7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies : (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar, Trade Marks [Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar, Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1] .) The present case attracts applicability of the first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the appellants' dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings.'

¶28

27. The principles of law which emerge are that:

¶29

27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well.

¶30

27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person.

¶31

27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where : (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.

¶32

27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law.

¶33

27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.

¶34

27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with."

¶35

(emphasis in original)

¶36

On being confronted, after taking note of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the remedy available.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.

¶38

Office is directed to return the certified copy of the papers, if any, to the learned counsel for the petitioner as per rules.

¶39

Order Date :- 18.7.2025

¶40

ML/-

¶41

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sudhakar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Ram Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Chhatra Pal Vs State of U.P.

Batoley @ Mata Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Alias Binu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mo. Harun @ Tiger vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Sudhakar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another