Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court of India, in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited & Ors., has quashed a Rajasthan High Court judgment, stating the High Court was not justified in entertaining a writ petition when an adequate alternate remedy existed under the Electricity Act, 2003. The apex court also found fault with the High Court’s directive (mandamus) concerning a power procurement contract.
The Supreme Court, in its detailed reasoning (paragraphs 93-105), found that the High Court erred in directly entertaining the writ petition filed by MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited. It reiterated the principle laid down by its Constitution Bench in PTC India Limited, affirming that the Electricity Act is an exhaustive code on all matters concerning electricity. Issues under this Act are to be considered by specialized authorities like the State Electricity Commission and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), which possess the necessary expertise.
The Court observed that MB Power had an adequate alternate remedy by approaching the State Electricity Commission. It referenced Reliance Infrastructure Limited v. State of Maharashtra, noting that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is typically invoked in cases of manifest unreasonableness or arbitrariness, which was not even alleged by MB Power.
While acknowledging that the availability of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to a High Court’s writ jurisdiction, the Supreme Court emphasized that such recourse is permissible only in “extraordinary and exceptional circumstances.” It cited Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and South Indian Bank Ltd. and others v. Naveen Mathew Philip. The Radha Krishan Industries case outlined exceptions to the “rule of alternate remedy,” such as:
