Alternative remedy is no bar to writ jurisdiction where impugned order violates principles of natural justice.

The Appellant challenged an order dated 03.08.2021 passed by Respondent No. 3 impounding his passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967

The impounding followed show cause notices (SCN) dated 16.03.2021 and 20.07.2021, alleging non-cooperation with investigations by the CBI and ED regarding the Agusta Westland Helicopter Scam

The second SCN was received by the Appellant on 28.07.2021, providing seven days to reply (until 04.08.2021)

However, the final impounding order was passed on 03.08.2021, prior to the expiry of the reply period

The Appellant filed a writ petition [W.P.(C) No. 9509/2021], which a learned Single Judge disposed of on 13.02.2026, relegating the Appellant to the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act

The Appellant preferred this intra-court appeal against that dismissal.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's discretionary power to entertain writ petitions

Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others (1998) 8 SCC 1, which establishes that the existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar to writ jurisdiction in cases involving: (i) enforcement of fundamental rights, (ii) violation of principles of natural justice, (iii) lack of jurisdiction, or (iv) challenge to the vires of an Act

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, emphasizing that principles of natural justice are of special significance in passport impounding proceedings

The Court observed that the Respondent passed the final impounding order on 03.08.2021, even though the Appellant’s deadline to respond to the SCN was 04.08.2021

This established a prima facie case of violation of the principles of natural justice

Furthermore, the final order failed to discuss the Appellant’s initial reply dated 31.03.2021

The Court noted that the writ petition had been pending since 2021, and relegating the party to an appellate remedy after five years of litigation was unwarranted

By applying the Whirlpool Corporation exceptions, the Court reasoned that the Single Judge should have exercised writ jurisdiction because the procedural haste (passing the order before the reply deadline) constituted a clear breach of natural justice, rendering the bar of alternative remedy inapplicable

The Court held that the Single Judge erred in declining to entertain the petition on the grounds of an alternative remedy when a violation of natural justice was evident

The matter was remanded to the Single Judge for a fresh consideration of the writ petition on its merits

The Court directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file its counter-affidavit within two weeks and requested the Single Judge to decide the writ petition expeditiously, preferably within two months

The parties were directed to appear before the Single Judge on 06.04.2026