Writ Courts Relegating Parties to Alternative Remedies Must Not Make Observations on Merits.

The appellant (Respondent No. 3 in the original writ petition) challenged an order dated 06.02.2026 passed by a Single Judge in WPA No. 26 of 2026.

In that order, the Single Judge relegated the appellant to a statutory appellate remedy regarding a demolition order dated 18.08.2021.

However, the Single Judge included observations stating that if the appeal were dismissed, the demolition order would stand "affirmed" and the municipality must proceed with implementation.

The appellant contended these remarks were prejudicial and rendered the statutory appeal illusory.

The appellant also challenged the locus standi of the original writ petitioner (Respondent No. 1 herein), describing them as a "stranger" to the land.

1. Whether the observations made by the Single Judge regarding the affirmation and implementation of the demolition order upon dismissal of the appeal prejudiced the appellant’s statutory remedy.

2. Whether the Single Judge erred in making extensive observations on merits while simultaneously doubting the locus standi of the writ petitioner.

When a Writ Court relegates a party to an alternative statutory remedy, it must refrain from making observations on the merits of the case to avoid influencing the independent judgment of the statutory authority.

Tinplate Company of India Ltd. vs State of Bihar (1998) 8 SCC 272

Division Bench judgment in Ramzan Ali & Another vs The Administrator (LG), A & N Islands & Others regarding the scope of judicial interference in such matters.

The Division Bench found that the Single Judge’s remarks — specifically that the demolition order "shall stand affirmed" upon dismissal — could be construed as a finding on the merits of the case.

The Court reasoned that such extraneous observations create a "cascading effect" that prejudices the independent mind of the respondent authorities who are supposed to hear the appeal.

The Court noted an inconsistency in the Single Judge's approach: having expressed doubt regarding the locus standi of the original petitioner, the judge should not have proceeded to pass extensive observations that impacted the appellant's substantive rights.

The Bench emphasized that the statutory appellate authority must remain entirely uninfluenced by judicial remarks when exercising its independent jurisdiction.

The Court ordered the statutory appellate authority (Respondent No. 3) to dispose of the appeal against demolition order No. 3699 within twelve weeks after condoning any delay and providing a fair hearing, deciding the matter independently on its own merits without being influenced by previous judicial observations.

The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the legality of the construction itself.