Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against a Judicial Order of High Court is not maintainable
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Neelam Manmohan Attavar V. Manmohan Attavar (R) held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable if filed to challenge a Judicial order of a High court.
The division bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice DY Chandrachud and KM Joseph observed that, “we are of the view that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers. In the present case, the High Court has exercised its revisional jurisdiction. Merely assailing the order as an order which is void would not enable a litigant to avoid the consequences which emanate from the order, by instituting a writ petition under Article 226. A litigant is not without her remedies. An order which has been passed by the High Court can either be assailed in a Letters Patent Appeal (in those cases where the remedy of a Letters Patent Appeal is available in law) or by way of a review (where the remedy of a review is available in a certain class of matters). A remedy is available to a litigant against a judicial order of the High Court passed in revisional proceedings, under Article 136 of the Constitution before this court.”
Before parting the bench further noted that the petitioner has the rights and remedies available including by the way of Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution to assail the judgement of Single Judge, it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “we expressly leave open the rights and remedies available to the petitioner, including by way of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution to assail the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in proceedings before this Court”