M/S Sunil Kumar Agrawal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

These writ appeals were filed by various appellants including M/s Sunil Kumar Agrawal, BGR Mining And Infra Limited, M/s Naraayani Sons Private Limited, Dee Cee Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd., challenging a common order dated 03/04/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants had previously approached the High Court, and the matter had gone through a first round of litigation where a Division Bench had directed the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petitions on merits. However, the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy, despite the previous directions. The appellants argued that the issue of alternative remedy had already been decided and that the learned Single Judge was bound by the earlier orders.

Held

The High Court held that the learned Single Judge was unjustified in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court reasoned that the issue of alternative remedy had already attained finality in the first round of litigation, with the Division Bench's order directing the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petitions on merits. The learned Single Judge, having been bound by this prior order, could not have revisited and dismissed the petitions on the same ground. The Court relied on Supreme Court decisions in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. and Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited, emphasizing that purely legal questions, not involving disputed facts, are amenable to writ jurisdiction and that the existence of an alternative remedy does not preclude the High Court from exercising its powers in certain contingencies. Consequently, the impugned common order dated 03/04/2025 was set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the learned Single Judge for decision on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy, notwithstanding the previous order of the Division Bench directing adjudication on merits? Petitioner/Appellant's Arguments: The appellants contended that the issue of alternative remedy had been decided in their favour in the first round of litigation, with the Division Bench's order directing the learned Single Judge to decide the matter on merits. They argued that the learned Single Judge erred by re-examining the issue of alternative remedy and dismissing the petitions on that ground, thereby ignoring the finality of the previous orders. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. and Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited, which held that purely legal questions not involving disputed facts should be decided by the High Court, and that the existence of an alternative remedy does not always bar writ jurisdiction. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents/State regarding the issues raised by the appellants.