In Ernakulam Regional Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Etc. v. Nithu & Ors. Etc. [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1235 : 2024 INSC 230 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the context of adjudicating an issue which involved the challenge to maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before a High Court, reiterated the principles of exhaustion of alternative remedies.
It held that 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”.
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.