Petitioner should use other options before moving court

HYDERABAD: Normally, High Court judges do not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when an effective alternative remedy is available to the issues of the parties concerned. They suggest to the aggrieved parties to first approach the appropriate authorities or lower courts for remedy before moving the appellate courts.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Courts have got powers to issue orders to any person or authority, including in appropriate case any government, directions for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights and for ‘any other purpose’.

While dealing with a case filed by a woman, Justice Challa Kodanda Ram of the Hyderabad High Court has found that the petitioner has not approached the authorities concerned, seeking remedy to her issue.
As for the case details, the woman alleged inaction of the police in proceeding with investigation into suspicious death of her son, a doctor, at a hospital while undergoing treatment. She suspected her daughter-in-law’s involvement in the death.

The police registered an FIR on the basis of complaint lodged by her daughter-in-law (wife of the deceased). The elderly woman (petitioner) also lodged a complaint against her daughter-in-law suspecting her role in the death. When there was no response from the police, she moved the High Court contending that she was not provided updated information on FIR or the status of investigation.

Justice Kodanda Ram noticed that the petitioner had not approached the authorities concerned seeking the status of investigation or the stage at which investigation had stalled or being proceeded with. He said that in normal circumstances the High Court would have directed the government pleader to get instructions on the status of investigation. The government counsel, in turn, would report the status of investigation before the court and make it a part of the record and the petitions concerned would be disposed of.

However, in the present case, the petitioner has a very effective alternative remedy and it is open to her to avail the remedy under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and seek necessary information from the authorities which she seeks to obtain through the medium of court, he observed.

The judge said that even assuming that the petitioner had approached the authorities concerned and that the latter did not respond, she has got the right to approach the officials concerned under the RTI Act where the designated public information officer is required to furnish necessary information within the time stipulated, state the reasons and the information that is required to be furnished on which queries are put.

If no information is provided within the stipulated time, right of appeal is provided under the Act. In case, the information provided is not adequate, it would also give further opportunity to seek clarification, he noted and disposed of the petition saying that when an effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, this court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to deal with the case.