Courts often stress the importance of exhausting available legal remedies before turning to higher courts, especially constitutional courts. This rule ensures that cases follow the correct process, respecting the structure of the legal system. A recent decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court highlights this important principle.
Background of the Case
Alternative Remedies Under the Law
The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 allows anyone dissatisfied with a DRT decision to appeal to an Appellate Tribunal under Section 20. This provision applies to most decisions by the DRT, except when both parties consent to the order. The High Court made it clear that this appeal option should have been used first.
Supreme Court’s Position on Similar Cases
The court referred to key judgments by the Supreme Court to support its decision:
- Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan
The Supreme Court ruled that when laws provide clear remedies, courts should not allow people to skip steps and approach constitutional courts directly. - PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank
The Court strongly criticized cases where High Courts entertained petitions even when proper legal remedies were available under special laws.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Follow the Legal Process
The courts have a structured hierarchy for resolving disputes. Before approaching a higher court, individuals must use the remedies provided in the law. - Constitutional Courts Are Not the First Option
The High Court reiterated that writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution should only be entertained in rare and exceptional cases, such as when there is a violation of fundamental rights. - Efficiency in the Legal System
Allowing people to bypass available remedies would overburden higher courts and delay justice for others. Following the process ensures faster resolutions and respects the law.
The judges remarked:
“Courts should not entertain writ petitions when the law already provides proper remedies. This approach ensures fairness, discipline, and respect for the legal process.”
Representation
Petitioner: Sri Penjuri Venugopal
Respondent (Punjab National Bank): Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava
