Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board against the Union of India concerning a writ petition dismissed by the Bombay High Court. The High Court had rejected the appellant's claim on the basis that an alternative remedy was available, directing the appellant to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 13 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The appellant had booked rakes for transporting coal and claimed a sum of Rs.3,56,69,671/- that was collected by mistake, which the respondent admitted. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erroneously dismissed the writ petition since the respondent had acknowledged its liability, and there was no disputed question of fact. The Court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, and directed the respondents to pay the admitted liability along with interest at 6% per annum from January 6, 1993, within three months.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Availability of Alternative Remedy - Article 226 of the Constitution - The High Court dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of alternative remedy being available, despite the respondent admitting liability. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have relegated the appellant to the alternative remedy when the liability was admitted, thus allowing the appeal and directing payment of the admitted amount with interest (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, and directed the respondents to pay the admitted liability along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within three months.
Law Points
- Article 226
- alternative remedy
- admitted liability
- Railway Claims Tribunal Act
- 1987
