Article 226 Recognises Wide Power Of High Courts To Remedy Injustice: Bombay HC Upholds Maintainability Of Writ Petition To Enforce Its Earlier Judgment

The Petitioners had approached the Bombay High Court seeking a writ of mandamus declaring that the Show Cause Notices issued by the Respondent Corporation (Fresh Show Cause Notices) were contrary to the Court's earlier Judgment dated September 19, 2025.

The Division Bench of Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash held, “The Calcutta High Court in Bibekananda (supra) has held that the language used in Article 226 of the Constitution of India is couched in comprehensive phraseology and the said Article recognises a very wide power on the High Courts to remedy injustice wherever it is found.”

Considering that the Inspection Report had been quashed through the September 19 judgment, the Bench stated, “The Respondents by issuing the Fresh Show Cause Notices on the basis of the Inspection Report dated 15th July 2024 is in our prima- facie view acting in wilful disobedience of the said judgment and amounts to an illegal and invalid act.”

Advocate Rashmin Khandekar represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Shailesh S. Pathak represented ESIC.

Factual Background

There were observations in the Fresh Show Cause Notices as to the non-payment of contributions. The Petitioners had been called for a personal hearing on the Fresh Show Cause Notices.

Arguments

There was a preliminary objection raised by the Respondent – Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the Writ Petition should have been filed before the Single Judge or before the Bench having the assignment of Labour and Service Matters.

It was the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to an enquiry made, the Registry informed the Advocate for the Petitioners that the assignment pertained to the present Bench as it was a writ for the enforcement of the orders of the High Court. Reliance was also placed upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bibekananda Mondal v/s. State of West Bengal (2002), wherein it has been reaffirmed that the second writ application is maintainable for the implementation of an earlier order of the writ Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, held, “Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that this Bench is having jurisdiction to entertain this Writ Petition.”

The Bench referred to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Bibekananda Mondal (Supra) wherein it has been held that the language used in Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in comprehensive phraseology and the said Article recognises a very wide power on the High Courts to remedy injustice wherever it is found.

The Bench noted that Fresh Show Cause Notices relied upon the Inspection Report, and this Report was part of the impugned orders. However, the Inspection Report was quashed and set aside by the judgment dated September 19, 2025. The Bench was of the view that such a report could not be relied upon in the Fresh Show Cause Notices issued by the Respondents. The Bench held that issuing the Fresh Show Cause Notices on the basis of the Inspection Report amounted to an illegal and invalid act.

The Bench thus granted ad-interim relief and directed the Respondent Corporation to file the Affidavit-in-Reply to the Writ Petition within three weeks. “Place the Writ Petition for consideration on 7th January 2026”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Foundever CRM India Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (Case No.: WP (L) No. 36732 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Rashmin Khandekar, Shalaka Patil, Harsh Khanchandani i/b. Trilegal

Respondent: Advocate Shailesh S. Pathak

Click here to read/download Order