Summary
The Supreme Court directed the Maharashtra Police Department to hand over, within four months and with arrears of rent, two flats in Mumbai it had occupied since 1940 without any written requisition order or lease, setting aside the High Court's refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction on the ground that the owners should file a suit; the Court held that the alternative-remedy rule is one of discretion, not compulsion, and relegating the owners to a suit after 84 years of occupation would add insult to injury.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was right to decline relief under Article 226 and relegate the owners to a civil suit, on the view that the nature of the Police Department's possession of the flats since 1940 (requisition or permissive occupation) was disputed and a statutory remedy existed.
- Whether, after the State failed to respond to the Court's repeated suggestions for an equitable settlement (market rent, outright purchase, or return of possession), the Court should direct restoration of possession.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court had declined to exercise writ jurisdiction because there was no written order of requisition and the nature of possession was disputed, leaving the owners to a suit. The Supreme Court held that exclusion of writ jurisdiction on account of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion, not compulsion, that the constitutional powers of the High Court and Supreme Court cannot be fettered by an alternative remedy, and that this was a case in which the High Court should have readily exercised its writ jurisdiction. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- Where the State had occupied two privately owned flats since 1940 without any written requisition order or lease deed, had not paid rent for many years, and gave no worthwhile response to the Court's suggestions that it either pay market rent, purchase the property outright, or return possession, the Court did not need to hear the parties on any other issue, set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the writ petition, directing restoration of vacant possession with arrears of rent. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6)
- The High Court erred in refusing writ relief by relegating the owners to a civil suit merely because it regarded the possession as permissive. Having regard to the circumstances of 1940 and 84 years of occupation, asking the owners to file a suit would add insult to injury, given how long such litigation would take; these are hard facts High Courts are expected to keep in mind. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- The rule that writ jurisdiction is excluded by the availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not of compulsion; there are many contingencies in which the High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction despite an alternative remedy, and the constitutional powers of the High Court and Supreme Court cannot be fettered by such a remedy. Injustice, whenever and wherever it occurs, should be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Result
Appeal disposed of; High Court judgment dated 30.04.2024 set aside and the writ petition allowed; respondents to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of both flats within four months together with arrears of rent calculated from 2008 up to the date of handing over; the Deputy Commissioner of Police present in Court to file an undertaking on oath within one week that possession will be handed over within four months; pending applications disposed of.