Article 226.

Power of the high court to issue writs

o (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers,
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to
any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within
those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for
the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other
purpose
 (2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs
to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court
exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action,
wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the
seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within
those territories
 (3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of
injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings
relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 )
Petitioner(Mr. True Lies) Respondent(state and SayPM)
The writ is maintainable The writ is not maintainable
The argument that the allegations are against
the prime minister in person and not against
the state, and when state is not a party neither
is the government
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT: A Division Bench
comprising of Biswanath Somadder and
Arindam Mukherjee, JJ., dismissed an appeal in
light of the availability of an efficacious
alternative remedy before a competent
statutory Authority.
The appeal was filed against the decision of the
learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ
petition filed by the appellant challenging the
election process for the post of the Gram
Panchayat member. The learned Single Judge,
while dismissing the petition, held that the
same was not maintainable before the writ
court and relegated the appellant to an
appropriate statutory remedy which is available
for a period of thirty days from the date of
declaration of the election results. The
appellant instead of applying before the
statutory authority, was before the High Court
in appeal.
The High Court considered the matter and
observed that the writ petition had challenged
the election process, and the statutory
mechanism for raising such dispute was clearly
stated under West Bengal Panchayat Eclection
Act 2003. The section prescribes the Statutory
Authority as well as the time for redressal of
the dispute. The court held that the appellant
could take the recourse to the available
alternative remedy before a competent
statutory authority as provided under the Act.
Therefore, the court did not find any infirmity
with the decision of the learned Single Judge,
and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. the
appellant was directed to approach the
Authority within ten days [Mina Perveen v.
State of W.B.,2018 SCC ONLINE CAL 3962,
decided on 25-06-2018]