The availability of an efficacious alternative remedy prevents a person from invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High court.

This is so because when there is an alternative and equally efficacious statutory remedy available then the writ jurisdiction of the court cannot be invoked. This is based on the premises that a court should not be approached directly for normal statutory violations. The writ remedy is available for preventing Constitutional wrongs and it cannot be invoked for resolving ordinary statutory wrongs. This is more so when it comes to invoking of the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court since it is narrower in scope than the High Court's writ jurisdiction. This rule equally applies for seeking remedies for the violation of copyright of a person. Thus, if a person does not invoke the provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 first and directly invokes the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, then the Court can dismiss that writ proceddings. There are, however, certain exceptions to this general rule.

In Khajanchi FilmExchange and Another v State of M.P and others petitioners instead of approaching the concerned authorities filed a writ petition in the High Court. The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed:
“ The film was not yet released. The petitioners did not approach the respondents. There was no failure on the part of the respondents in performance of their legal duties with respect of the right complained of. The entire machinery was put to doubt by the petitioners on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition that it is to the common knowledge that they do not take action. Thus apprehending infringement of their rights, the writ petition was filed. The petitioners should have approached the concerned authorities first; and in the event of their failure to take preventive measures/seizure of cassettes under the M.P.Police Regulations and the copyright Act, the petitioners should have approached this Court. If a writ is entertained and relief readily granted before release of the movie without approaching the respondents who have to prevent threatened violation of copyright, it would open a flood gate of litigation. The copyright Act provides adequate safeguards and procedure. It cannot be said that a mere apprehension that certain offence may take place, a writ can be filed seeking a direction that no such offence be allowed to take place. First authorities have to be asked to prevent it. The function of the police is to prevent piracy and unauthorized exhibition. In the instant case there was no inaction on the part of the police and other concerned officials and they were unnecessarily dragged in writ petition without even putting them to notice of proposed writ. No demand notice was served, no specific complaint was lodged. Thus writ is not maintainable”.

Thus, unless the case falls under the exempted category the court will not entertain a writ petition directly and it will relegate back the petitioner to Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner can save his money, time and resources if he is aware of this fact.

END OF PART VIII
TO BE CONTINUED.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITH THE AUTHOR.