AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.—The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 but is merely
a matter to be taken into account In exercising its discretion to issue the writ or not. At that stage the Court would consider not the mere existence
of the remedy but its reality, adequacy and effectiveness. Therefore the proper course for the office is to draw the attention of counsel to the
existence of the alternative remedy and to the possibility of the writ being dismissed on that ground, so that the petitioner might not later be mulcted
with costs. Secondly, the office will also bring this fact to the notice of the Court at the time of the admission so that the Court might be apprised of
this circumstance before a rule nisi is issued. The numbering of the writ petition however need not be refused on this ground.
In regard to the second objection as to whether the petitioner had obtained the permission of the head of his department before filing the petition
that is not a matter for the office at all nor even for the Court in disposing of the writ. If the service rules prescribe that without prior permission no
writ could be filed against Government--I am not aware of any in this case--the filing of the writ without permission might be a ground for taking
disciplinary action against the officer--but certainly not a ground for rejecting the petition. Article 226 does not impose such a qualification and the
Court cannot read any such into the article. I would only add that it is not quite clear, to me whether a rule which imposed such a ban would be
valid at all seeing that the Constitution by Article 226 had granted a right to every citizen--and this would include Government servants--to
approach the High Courts for redress where violation of the law is made out. It is sufficient to say that a writ petition cannot be refused to be
numbered on this ground.