STAR PAPER MILLS LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 380 · Decided: 19-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STAR PAPER MILLS LTD. 
~-
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Constit11tion of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ Petition-Maintainability 
of. when fact11al disp11tes involved-Held, not maintainable partic11larly when 
C alternative remedy available. 
Appellant filed Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, 
challenging the levy of market fee in terms of Rule 70 of the Uttar Pradesh 
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Niyamavali, 1965 on the purchases made by the 
appellant from U.P. Forest Corporation. High Court dismissed the Writ 
D Petition holding that factual disputes were involved and, therefore, it would 
be appropriate for the appellant to approach the concerned authority. A 
review petition was filed wherein it was stated that several points other 
than those relating to captive consumption were raised and, therefore, the 
matter should be heard afresh. The High Court dismissed the review 
petition on the ground that the points raised in the review petition were 
E neither raised in writ petition nor were contended before the Court when 
the matter was heard. The present appeals are against the orders 
dismissing writ petition and review petition. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. This is not a case where no factual adjudication is 
necessary. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view that the 
statutory remedy is to be availed. The appellant is directed to file necessary 
details before the concerned authority for consideration. The said 
authority shall consider the stand of appellant ar.d dispose of the same 
G expeditiously. (386-El 
2.1. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the 
Constitution ( 42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to 
alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self imposed 
limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and 
II 
380 
STAR PAPER MILLS LTD. v. STATE OF U.P. 
381 
never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy, it is A 
within the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under 
Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight 
or-that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing 
to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should 
not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. The 
Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes B 
to the conclusion. that there has been a breach of principles of natural 
justice or the procedure required for decision has not been adopted. 
(384-C-E; G-HJ 
K.S. Rashid and Sons v. Income Tax Investigation Commission and Ors., C 
AIR (1954) SC 207; Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Ors., 
AIR (1955) SC 425; Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR (1957) SC 882; State 
of U.P. and Ors. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR (1958) SC 86; Mis K.S. 
Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR (1966) SC 1089; 
State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai etc. etc., AIR (1964) SC 
1006; N. T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar and Ors., AIR (1959) SC D 
422; Municipal Council, Kl111rai and Anr. v. Kamal Kumar and Anr .. AIR 
(1965) SC 1321; Siliguri Municipality and Ors. v. Amalendu Das and Ors., 
AIR (1984) SC 653; S. T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan and Ors., AIR (1988) 
SC616; R.S.R.T.C. andAnr. v.KrishnaKantandOrs., AIR(1995)SC 1715; 
Kera/a State Electricity Board and Anr: v. Kurien E. Kalathil and Ors., AIR E 
(2000) SC 2573; A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan and Ors., 120001 
7 SCC 695; L.L. Sudhakar Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and 
Ors., 120011 6 SCC 634; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri 
MaharofrSahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 
and Ors., [20011 8 SCC 509; Pratap Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana, 
(200217 SCC 484; G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v.lncome Tax Officer and F 
Ors., 12003(1 SCC 72; Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 
1200312 SCC 107; G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd., AIR (1952) 
SC 192; Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., AIR 
-(1985) SC 330; Ramendra KishoreBiswas v. State of Tripura, AIR (1999) 
SC 294; Shivgonda Anna Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., G 
AIR (1999) SC 2281; C.A. Abraham v. /. T.O. Kottayam and Ors., AIR (1961) 
SC 609; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State ofOrissa and Anr., AIR (1983) 
SC 603;
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.