The Delhi High Court strongly criticised the recurring trend of filing writ petitions in situations where jurisdiction clearly lies elsewhere, cautioning that such practice may attract the imposition of costs, even at the stage of withdrawal. Justice Prateek Jalan observed that despite binding precedents from both the Supreme Court and this High Court, numerous petitions continue to be filed in the writ court even when the proper forum is the Central Administrative Tribunal or another specialized forum. The bench directed that the Registry forward a copy of this order to the President and Secretary of the Delhi High Court Bar Association before initiating any regular practice of cost imposition in such cases.
In the case before the Court, the petitioner Meenakshi Tyagi sought relief against an order of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), contending that it should be quashed and that she should be allowed to continue in service. The Court pointed out that AIIMS is a notified entity under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, meaning that challenges to its decisions must normally be brought before the Central Administrative Tribunal, not a High Court writ petition. The petitioner’s counsel had, in fact, earlier approached the Tribunal for relief by treating the impugned order as a representation. The High Court noted that even the Registry had flagged the maintainability issue, but the writ petition was pressed ahead without contesting that the proper forum was the Tribunal.
Rejecting the plea, the Court held that in matters falling within the CAT’s jurisdiction, litigants cannot bypass the Tribunal by going directly to the High Court unless the vires of the Tribunal Act itself is under challenge. The High Court expressed concern over the burden such misdirected petitions place on the writ jurisdiction, consuming judicial time and resources unnecessarily. The court emphasised that litigants often make last-minute attempts to invoke writ jurisdiction by claiming urgency, despite full knowledge of the proper forum, thereby undermining procedural discipline.
Justice Jalan permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition and to approach the Tribunal for appropriate remedy. However, he cautioned that in future, costs may be imposed even on withdrawal if a writ is filed without jurisdiction. The bench’s order signals a stricter approach to discourage forum shopping and misuse of writ jurisdiction. The Court’s direction to send a copy of the order to the Bar Association underlines its intent to alert the legal community about the seriousness of the issue and to foster compliance with jurisdictional boundaries.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.