It has been held in a catena of cases1 that the High Courts shall not exercise their

jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution if an alternate remedy is

available to the parties.
It is humbly submitted that while the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts
under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a
supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and
32 of the Constitution.2
It is submitted that where it is open to the aggrieved person to move another
tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner
provided in a statute, the High Court will not, by entertaining a petition under
Art 226, permit the machinery created by the statute to be by-passed.3
It is well-settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open
to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the
special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ.4The High Court
generally insists that the aggrieved party take recourse to statutory authority
before approaching the High Court under Article 226.5
The petitioner in the instant case surpassed the alternate remedy available to him
and directly approached the Honble Court. In light of the above submissions it
is established that such petitions are liable to be rejected at the outset due to non-
exhaustion of remedies.

PIL

It is humbly submitted that the Writ Petition filed in the form of Public Interest
Litigation is not maintainable because In Order to file a Writ Petition or Public
Interest Litigation under Article there must be infringement of fundamental
rights of the People6.

1
MohdYunusv. MohdMustaqim AIR 1984 SC 38; CIT v. ChhabilDass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603; State of
Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 3856.
2
KesavanandaBharativ. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
3
State of M.P v. Bhailal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006; UOI v. Prabhavalkar, G.R., AIR 1973 SC 2102.
4
Union of India v. T. R.Varma [1958] S.C.R. 499.
5
U.P. Jal Nigam v. NareshwarSahariMathur (1995) 1 SCC 21; Secretary v. Sahngoo Ram Arya (2002) 5 SCC
521.
6
M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (5thedn, Lexis Nexis 2009) 1309.
 It is submitted before the Honble Court that SVG has alleged that innocent youth are
being deceived to use the app and there is a sprout in the HIV cases after more
and more people started dating using Love-Finder.7 However, the claims are
totally unfounded and are frivolous in nature.
It was held in Balco Employees Union v. Union of India8 that Public Interest
Litigation is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs it was essentially meant to
protect basic human rights of the weak and disadvantaged and procedure was
innovated where public spirited persons could approach the court on their behalf
and not otherwise.
It is humbly submitted that the Apex Court has held that Public Interest Litigation can
be filed by any member of public having sufficient interest for public injury
arising from violation of legal rights so as to get judicial redress. This is
absolutely necessary for maintaining Rule of law and accelerating the balance
between law and justice.9
The Court should not allow its process to be abused by mere busybodies,
meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no
public interest except for personal gain or private profit either for themselves or
as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of
publicity.10
The dominant object of PIL is to ensure observance of the provisions of the
Constitution or the law which can be best achieved to advance the cause of
community or disadvantaged groups and individuals or public interest by
permitting any person, acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in
maintaining an action for judicial redress for public injury to put the judicial
machinery in motion like actiopopularis of Roman Law whereby any citizen
could bring such an action in respect of a public delict.11
The court now permits Public Interest Litigation or Social Interest Litigation at the
instance of Public spirited citizens for the enforcement of constitutional &

7
Factsheet Line 1.Para 21,
8
Balco employees union v. Union of India, (2002) AIR SC 350.
9
S.P Gupta v Union of India, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 209.
10
DattarajNathujiThawarev.State Of Maharashtra &Ors, (2005) 1 SCC 590.
11
Thakur Bahadur Singh And Another v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh, 1998 (6) ALD 101.
 legal rights of any person or group of persons who because of their socially or
economically disadvantaged position are unable to approach court for relief.12

MAINTAINABLE

It is submitted that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the
proceeding of PIL will along have a locus standi and can approach the court to
wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their
fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or
political motive or any oblique consideration13.
In Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India14, it was held that
Public Interest Litigation which is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement
and which is intended to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses, who
constitute the low visibility area of humanity, is a totally different kind of
litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is essentially of an
adversary character where there is a dispute between two parties, one making a
claim or seeing relief against the other and that other opposing such claim or
relief.
Public interest litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing
the right of one individual against another as happens in the case of ordinary
litigation, but it is intended to promote and vindicate public interest which
demands that violations of constitutional or legal rights of large numbers of
people.15
S. P. Gupta v. Union of India16, articulated the concept of PIL as follows, Where a
legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of
persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden
is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without
authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is
threatened and such person or determinate class of persons by reasons of

12
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473.
13
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 598.
14
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1983 SCR (1) 456.
15
Bihar Legal Support Society, New Delhi v. C.J. of India, AIR 1987 SC 39.
16
In Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd), (1986) 1 SCC 100.
 poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged
position unable to approach the court for relief, any member of public can
maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High
Court under Article 226 and in case any breach of fundamental rights of such
persons or determinate class of persons, in this court under Article 32 seeking
judicial redress for the legal wrong or legal injury caused to such person or
determinate class of persons.
It is humbly submitted the case of Council for Environment Legal Action v. Union
of India17 Public Interest Litigation filed by registered voluntary organization
regarding economic degradation in coastal area. Supreme Court issued
appropriate orders and directions for enforcing the laws to protect ecology.
The rule of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting bona fide and having
sufficient interest in the proceeding of Public Interest Litigation will alone have
a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental
rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions.18It has to be seen that the
court strikes balance between two conflicting interests:
(i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations
besmirching the character of others19; and
(ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions
seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive and the
legislature20.
A PIL can be instituted against private party U/A 226 of the Constitution21, if the
State is made a co-party in the petition. It is already held that any member of the
public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress from
violation of some provision of the Constitution22.Whenever injustice is meted
out to people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in Articles 21 of the
Constitution of Enduras as well as the International Conventions on Human
Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial.23

17
Council for Environment Legal Action v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 77.
18
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary And Ors., AIR 1993 SC 892.
19
Dattaraj Nathuji Thawarev. State of Maharashtra & Ors (2005) 1 SCC 590.
20
Holicow Pictures Pvt., Ltd., v. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors., 2008 (1) CTC 711.
21
Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161 20.
22
B.P. Singhal v. Union of India &Anr, (2010) 6 SCC 331.
23
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 546.
Therefore in light of the aforesaid legal principles the Petitioners have the requisite locus
standi to file the instant petition, and the Honble High Court should admit the present
petition.

It is humbly submitted that the Petitioners had initially approached the Police
Department for Registration of an FIR against Mr. Bernie Thomas, Chief
Executive Officer of Love Finder, however the police refused to register the FIR,
despite the offence being one of a cognizable nature. Owing to the inaction of
the Police, the petitioner has approached the Honble Court.
It is most respectfully submitted before the Honble Court that despite the existence of
an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court
to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.24In the case of Harbans Lal
Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd25 it was held that In an appropriate case
in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still
exercise its writ jurisdiction in where the orders or proceedings are wholly
without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged.26
It is further submitted that the existence of alternative legal remedy is not a bar for the
invocation of High Courts jurisdiction under Article 226, when relief is sought
in the case of infringement of a Fundamental Right27.
It is a settled law that Article 226 is couched in widest possible terms and unless there
is a clear bar to its jurisdiction, its powers under this Article can be exercised
where there is any Act which is against any provision of law or violative of the
constitutional provisions and when recourse cannot be had to the provisions of
the Act for the appropriate relief.28The limitation imposed by the Court in such
cases is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and not a rule of
law.29
The existence of an adequate alternative remedy is not a bar to the invocation of the
High Courts jurisdiction under Art.226 when relief is sought in case of

24
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 3856.
25
Harbanslal Sahniav. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC.
26
Sh. Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 1.
27
Himmatlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh., AIR 1954 SC 403.
28
K Venkatachalamv. A Swamickan AIR 1999 SC 1723.
29
U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey (2005) 8 SCC 264.
 infringement of a Fundamental Right.30It does not take away the jurisdiction of
the Court to grant relief under Art.226 in exceptional circumstances.31
Rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule
of discretion and not one of compulsion- High Court may still exercise writ
jurisdiction in spite of availability of the alternative remedy in at least three
contingencies32
(i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental
rights33,
(ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice34, or
(iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or vires
of an Act is challenged.35
Therefore, despite the existence of alternate remedies, the same are not a bar to the
maintainability of the instant petition.

30
Himma tLal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 403; State of Bombay v. United Motors, (1953) SCR
1069; State of Rajasthan v. Karamchand Thappar and Brothers, AIR 1965 SC 913.
31
Chennakrishna Textiles v. Union of India, (1968) SC 122; Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1995) 6
SCC 31.
32
State of H.P v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., 2005 (6) SCC 499.
33
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603.
34
Sanjana M. Wigv. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., 2005 (8) SCC 242.
35
M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd v. Jahan Khan, (2007 (10) SCC 88.