In a judgment reiterating the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that the mere existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court from exercising its writ powers, particularly in cases of prolonged injustice. The decision came in Neha Chandrakant Shroff & Anr. vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., where the Court set aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had refused to entertain the petitioners’ plea on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
Case Background
The appellants, Neha Chandrakant Shroff and another, had approached the Bombay High Court seeking restoration of possession of two flats (Flat Nos. 11 and 12) located in Amar Bhavan, Opera House, Mumbai. They contended that in 1940, their predecessor had temporarily handed over possession of these flats to the Maharashtra Police Department to accommodate officers during a time of administrative need, and that no written requisition order or lease deed was ever executed.
Although a nominal rent of ₹611 per month was paid till December 2007, no payments were made thereafter. Repeated demands for return of possession went unanswered, compelling the petitioners to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Bombay High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition on April 30, 2024, stating that the dispute involved questions of fact and advised the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy under tenancy or rent control laws.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Allowing the appeal against the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan clarified the legal position on the rule of alternative remedy:
“The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion.”
The Court added that:
“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. The constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the party concerned.”
It observed that asking the petitioners to now initiate civil proceedings would be unjust:
“To ask the appellants to file a suit and recover the possession would be like adding insult to the injury… These are the hard facts, the High Courts are expected to keep in mind in today’s times.”
Findings and Directions
The Court held that there was no material on record to prove that the flats had been requisitioned under any formal legal provision. It noted that two police families continued to occupy the flats in the absence of any lease agreement or requisition order, and that no rent had been paid for 18 years.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court:
- Set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment.
- Directed the State to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the two flats to the appellants within four months.
- Ordered payment of arrears of rent from 2008 till the date of possession.
- Directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, who was present in court, to file an affidavit undertaking compliance within one week.
