Read Time: 06 minutes

The Allahabad High Court recently denied entertaining a writ petition whereby the petitioner had by-passed the statutory alternative remedy stating his physical inability to approach the Apex Court. The high court said that the petitioner could avail the alternate channel by using telecommunication and digital technology.

The bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan said that "The alternative digital channel being put in place by the Apex Court for justice delivery can always be availed by the petitioner....Once the alternate channel is available to the petitioner by using telecommunication and digital technology, the plea of the petitioner that the present writ petition may be entertained is not acceptable.”

The petitioner, an ex-army man, through his writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, had challenged one August 2021 order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (RB), Lucknow pertaining to arrears of his pension and other retiral dues.

However, the maintainability of the writ petition was questioned by the respondent parties on the ground that the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

Against this, the petitioner had submitted that although there was an alternative remedy by way of preferring an appeal before the Supreme Court, however, on account of the pitiable condition of the petitioner, the aforesaid remedy had not been efficacious in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, the instant petition was liable to be entertained.

Hearing arguments of both the parties, Court noted that against the primary ground raised by the petitioner to bypass the available statutory alternative remedy, he had neither filed any medical certificate nor had brought on record any document to demonstrate that he was not physically fit to approach the Supreme Court.

Court also pointed out that the petitioner had earlier also contested the litigation before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow, though residing at Allahabad.

Court, therefore, held, “Once the petitioner is in the position to contest the litigation at Lucknow then it was the duty of the petitioner to have brought on record the material circumstances which are preventing the petitioner from approaching the statutory alternative remedy of appeal before the Supreme Court and a bald allegation that the petitioner is suffering from ailment without giving any details of the ailments and without there being any material particulars about the plea of the petitioner, the plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted.”

Further highlighting that digitalization is also bridging the gap between the courts and the litigant ,“Various measures have been taken by the apex court for enabling the citizens to get “justice at doorstep” and the distance between the citizen and the apex court is of no consequence as a result of the digital process”, Court stressed.

Accordingly, finding no good reason to by-pass the statutory alternative remedy, Court dismissed the instant writ petition.

Case Title: Ram Harsh v. Union of India and 4 Others