The Supreme Court observed that mere pendency of a writ petition does not relieve litigants of their obligation to exhaust alternative time-bound remedies provided under special laws.

A Bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed an appeal filed by a litigant who, despite having an alternative statutory remedy under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (“the Act”) to challenge the auction of her property, chose instead to approach the Madras High Court by way of a writ petition. The appellant had argued that filing a separate application under the Act was unnecessary because the High Court, in the writ proceedings, had already granted an interim order staying the 'confirmation of the sale'.

Affirming the High Court's decision to dismiss the Appellant's

See Full Page