Mahesh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. and others

M. Katju, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned termination order dated 21.6.2000. Learned standing counsel Sri H. R. Mishra states that the said termination order is appealable under Regulation 31 of Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Services Regulation. 1982.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the allegation of the petitioner is that the impugned termination order was passed without holding enquiry against the petitioner, hence alternative remedy should not be a ground for dismissing the petition. We do not agree. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. L.K. Ratna and Others, ; Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari Vs. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar, ; Sales Tax Officer, Jodhpur and Another Vs. Shiv Ratan G. Mohatta, etc.

In our opinion, learned counsel for the petitioner has not correctly understood the aforesaid decisions. These decisions cannot be understood to mean that a writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy merely because the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing or was without jurisdiction. In our opinion, the correct position is that if opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner or that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, this can be an additional consideration for the Court in deciding the question whether the petitioner should be relegated to his alternative remedy or not. However, we do not agree that the legal position is that if an order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing or the impugned order is without Jurisdiction, the writ petition can never be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. No such absolute legal proposition can be culled out from the aforesaid decisions. No doubt existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition. However, it is settled law that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction, and one of the grounds on which the Court can refuse to exercise its discretion is that an alternative remedy is available. Whether the petition should be dismissed or not on this ground is in the discretion of the Court, and availability of alternative remedy is certainly a ground for refusing to exercise discretion.

Nowadays, particularly, when there is a huge back log of pending cases in this Court, this Court usually insists that if an alternative remedy is available, the petition should ordinarily be dismissed. It is only in exceptional cases that this Court will entertain such cases even where alternative remedy is available, otherwise this Court will be flooded with many more arrears of pending cases.

In these circumstances, we dismiss the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Under Regulation 31 of Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Services Regulation. 1982, the petitioner may file an appeal against the impugned order before the concerned authority who will decide the same preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law. If the appeal is filed within three weeks from today. It will be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation and shall be decided on merits.