Writ petition an extraordinary remedy which can be invoked only after exploring all other options: High Court

Read Order: Mahesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others 

Vivek Gupta

Chandigarh, July 8, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that writ petition is an extraordinary remedy which can be invoked only after having attempted to get the desired relief by exploring all other options.

A Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal made the observations while hearing a petition for removal of an illegal encroachment from a public road in Haryana’s Charkhi Dadri city, and asked petitioners to relegate to the alternative remedy.

“… the remedy of writ petition is not panacea to each and every inaction on the part of the State officials,” the Bench held, adding that “writ petition is an extraordinary remedy which can be invoked only after having attempted to get the desired relief by exploring all other options”.

The petitioners, local residents, contended that on account of permanent structures, the major part of a main road which belongs to PWD (B&R) has been encroached upon. They argued that originally the road was 44 feet wide. However, due to encroachments, the width available for traffic has become narrow resulting in chaos and traffic jams.

During the hearing, it was learnt that the executive Engineer of the PWD (B&R) Department issued notices to various shop keepers to hand over the vacant possession of the encroached area. The petitioners claim that thereafter no action has been taken.

The high court noted that the State of Haryana has enacted the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 to get unauthorised occupation of public premises removed. The Collector, after issuing show cause notice under Section 4 of the 1972 Act, can initiate proceedings to remove the encroachment.

“The petitioners while filing the writ petition, are stated to have sent a notice to the Chief Secretary, Haryana, on 05.07.2020 with copies to the various officials including the Deputy Commissioner, Charkhi Dadri. As per the provisions of the Act of 1972, the Collector can be the Deputy Commissioner of a district or he can be any other person as authorized by the State,” the HC noted in its order.

“Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Bench is of the considered view that the remedy of writ petition is not panacea to each and every inaction on the part of the State officials,” the Bench noted in its order.

It said the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent alternative statutory remedies. 

“The writ petition is an extraordinary remedy which can be invoked only after having attempted to get the desired relief by exploring all other options. It is a settled position of law that when the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation and a specific remedy is provided under law, the High Court should not deviate from the general view and decline to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except in compelling circumstances. Ordinarily, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in the first instance,” the HC said. 

“Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, as noted above, the petitioners are relegated to the alternative remedy,” the Bench held.