Whether the High Court can entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person? Explain.

According to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and Others decided on 12.04.2024, High Court cannot entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person. However, it is subject to certain exceptions. This case can be referred to for understanding and give more clarity of the law relating to entertaining writ petition by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has that it could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus: where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice In view of the above it can be said that while the High Court generally expects on the exhaustion of alternative remedies, it retains the discretion to entertain a petition under Article 226 in exceptional cases such as where alternative remedies are inadequate, ineffective, or unavailable, or where there is a clear case of injustice or a violation of fundamental rights.