Neha Chandrakant Shroff & vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 484 - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy
Constitution of India - Article 226 - The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. There can be many contingencies in which the High Court may be justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction inspite of availability of an alternative remedy. (Para 11) The constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the party concerned. Injustice, whenever and wherever it takes place, should be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution. (Para 12) [Allowing appeal against HC judgment, Supreme Court directed Maharashtra Police Dept. to handover vacant and peaceful possession of flats belonging to appellants along with the arrears of rent accrued till the date of handing over of the possession of the two flats and observed: The High Court should have kept the year in mind i.e. 1940. This country was ruled by the Britishers. The country was fighting hard to seek independence from the Britishers. Bombay in the year 1940 was altogether different. At the relevant point of time, the Department perhaps might have persuaded the appellants or their predecessors in title to part with the possession of the two flats for the Police Department. However, it has been now 84 years that the Police Department has been in occupation and use of the two flats. Look at the conduct of the Department. We are informed that past eighteen years even rent has not been paid.]
