1. Leave granted.
2. The right to approach the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution or both is within the ambit of the right to avail constitutional remedies as enshrined under Article 32 of the Constitution. These are styled as extraordinary remedies because they are not part of the ordinary procedure prescribed for adjudication of disputes in the ordinary Courts of Law. The remedy of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby the High Court is empowered to call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to it and in which no appeal lies thereto is an ordinary one empowering it to pass appropriate orders when the subordinate Court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to exercise its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. This remedy pre-supposes the cause having been in a Court subordinate to such High Court.
3. In these set of appeals the view expressed by the Delhi High Court has been questioned whereby petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were held by it to be not maintainable in the presence of the regular remedy available under Section 115, CPC towards challenging the orders of the District Judge, Delhi passed under Section 169(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Few of these appeals are by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the remaining are by the tax-payers. We treat them all as identical.
4. It is true that the extraordinary remedies provided under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are dependent upon the High Court willing to interfere in a matter for which a large measure of discretion rests with it. Its power is so wide so as to envelope not only all aspects of the matter but orders can be passed of such nature as the High Court thinks fit. The jurisdiction as such is not curtailed to meet questions of parameters. On the other hand, the regular remedy under Section 115, CPC is hedged by the language of the provision. Only errors of jurisdiction and material irregularities in the exercise of jurisdiction bring about a cause within the ambit of that provision. All the same it is worthy of notice that the Forum for the aforementioned three remedies ordinary as well as extraordinary is with the High Court itself. We see no reason then as to why the frame of the cause be determinative. It is for the litigant to choose the remedy and it is for the High Court to grant or deny relief thereon having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. We may, however, add that the existence of an alternative remedy can by itself be a ground for the High Court refusing to exercise jurisdiction but it is not as if jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted by such existence. The High Court's dependence on Visheh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad, AIR 1980 SC 892 in refusing to convert a petition under Section 115, CPC to be one under Article 227 of the Constitution may have been justified on the fact of that case, but the same cannot be treated as a precedent to oust jurisdiction of the High Court vested in it under the law. The High Court certainly is entitled to convert any proceeding instituted before it in one manner to be that of another provided a proper cause has been made out and in the interest of justice.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and remit the matters back to it to be placed on its file for further consideration on merits in accordance with law.