Alternative remedy to filing of appeal under Section 53T of Competition Act not an absolute bar # indianlaws

The issue before Court in the present appeal was of the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), otherwise is appealable to the Supreme Court under Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002.

It was held that the power of the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parliamentary legislation. However when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained.

The maintainability of the writ petition was sought to be justified on the ground that the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal in limine was contrary to the principles of natural justice and amounted to refusal by the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.

The Court observed that if writ petitions on such grounds are entertained, the same would negate the provision of the statutory appeal. Availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 53T is not an absolute bar to maintainability of writ petition in following three circumstances:

• Writ petition is filed for the enforcement of any Fundamental Rights;
• There is a violation of the principles of natural justice; or
• Where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act.

[Bela Rani Bhattcharyya vs. Union of India]
(Delhi HC, 02.07.2014)