Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Vipul M. Pancholi in the case of Kolanjiammal (D) Thr Lrs. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer Perambalur District & Ors. (2025) dismissed an appeal, holding that mere pendency of writ proceedings does not relieve litigants of their obligation to exhaust alternative time-bound remedies provided under special statutes. 

What was the Background of Kolanjiammal (D) Thr Lrs. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer Perambalur District & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The appellant's property was subjected to auction proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for recovery of dues. 
• Instead of availing the specific statutory remedy provided under Sections 37-A and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the appellant approached the Madras High Court by way of a writ petition. 
• The High Court, in the writ proceedings, had granted an interim order staying the 'confirmation of the sale'. 
• An auction was conducted on 29.07.2005. 
• The appellant argued that filing a separate application under the Act was unnecessary because the High Court had already granted interim protection in the writ proceedings. 
• The appellant failed to file an objection to the auction sale within the statutory period of 30 days as prescribed under Sections 37-A or 38 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. 
• The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, noting the failure to exhaust the statutory remedy. 
• The appellant then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that "the appellant's failure to avail herself of the specific statutory mechanism cannot be excused merely because parallel proceedings were pending before the High Court." 
• The Court drew a critical distinction between staying the confirmation of sale and staying the conduct of the auction itself. 
• The Court noted that while the High Court had issued an interim order "staying confirmation of the sale," there was no order staying the conduct of the auction itself. 
• The Court observed that "the auction held on 29.07.2005 was not in violation of any subsisting judicial restraint," emphasizing that the authorities acted within their rights by proceeding with the auction. 
• The Court held that the appellant's belief that the entire process was frozen was based on a "misconceived" interpretation of the court's limited order. 
• The Court emphasized that "the stay on confirmation (of sale) does not suspend the statutory obligation to seek redress within 30 days as per Sections 37-A or 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act." 
• Referencing Rajasthan Housing Board & Others v. Krishna Kumari, (2005), the Court emphasized that interim protection cannot be used to frustrate statutory procedures for recovery. 
• The Court pointed out that the interim stay on sale confirmation didn't preclude the appellant from availing the statutory remedy under the Act. 
• The Court affirmed the High Court's decision to dismiss the appellant's writ petition. 
• The Court held that mere pendency of a writ petition does not relieve litigants of their obligation to exhaust alternative time-bound remedies provided under special laws. 
• Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

What is the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies? 

• The doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies is a principle in administrative and constitutional law that requires litigants to pursue all available statutory or alternative remedies before approaching courts through extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
• This doctrine ensures that specialized tribunals and statutory mechanisms created for specific purposes are given primacy before constitutional courts intervene. 
• The principle prevents the misuse of writ jurisdiction and maintains the efficiency of the judicial system by ensuring that matters are first addressed by bodies specifically designed to handle them. 
• Courts generally decline to entertain writ petitions when an effective alternative remedy exists, unless exceptional circumstances such as violation of fundamental rights or jurisdictional errors are involved.

What is Article 226 of the COI?  

• Article 226 is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which puts power in the hand of the High Court to issue the writs. 
• Article 226(1) of the COI states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purpose. 
• Article 226(2) states that the High Court has the power to issue writs or orders to any person, or government, or authority -  
  • Located within its jurisdiction or 
  • Outside its local jurisdiction if the circumstances of the cause of action arise either wholly or partly within its territorial jurisdiction. 
• Article 226(3) states that when an interim order is passed by a High Court by way of injunction, stay, or by other means against a party then that party may apply to the court for the vacation of such an order and such an application should be disposed of by the court within the period of two weeks.  
• Article 226(4) says that the power granted by this article to a high court should not diminish the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32. 
• This Article can be issued against any person or authority, including the government. 
• This is merely a constitutional right and not a fundamental right and cannot be suspended even during an emergency. 
• Article 226 is of mandatory nature in case of fundamental rights and discretionary nature when it is issued for “any other purpose”. 
•  It enforces not only fundamental rights, but also other legal rights