2022 (9) TMI 1622 - HC - Indian Laws

Admissibility of writ petition and the requirement to avail alternative remedy - arguement is that once a writ petition was admitted for hearing, the petitioner cannot be relegated to avail alternative remedy - HELD THAT - In Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the High Court having entertained the writ petition, in which pleadings were also complete, ought to have decided the case on merits instead of relegating the parties to a civil suit. What cannot be lost sight of the fact is that the writ petition was pending for a long period of 13 years. The aforesaid case does not lay down as a proposition that invariably whenever a writ petition is admitted, it has to be heard on merit and the writ Court cannot exercise discretion to relegate the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. In Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti 2008 (5) TMI 642 - SUPREME COURT , it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that issuance of rule nisi or passing of interim orders is a relevant consideration for not relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedy if it appears to the High Court that the matter could be decided by a writ Court. It was observed that there is no proposition in law that once a writ petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. A perusal of the aforesaid two judgments would go to show that as a proposition of law it cannot be countenanced that once a writ petition is entertained and admitted, the same cannot be dismissed on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy at the time of hearing. It is opined that it is not a case where the writ Appellate Court ought to exercise discretion to entertain the writ petition. There are no infirmity with the view taken by the learned Single Judge for relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. The writ appeal fails and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Relegation of petitioner to avail alternative remedy after admission of writ petition.

Analysis:
The writ appeal was filed against an order relegating the appellant to avail an alternative remedy after the admission of the writ petition. The appellant and respondent No. 1 had applied for the position of Aangan-Badi Karyakarta, with the appellant being initially appointed but later replaced by respondent No. 1 based on an appeal decision by the Collector. The appellant continued to work based on an interim stay order. The writ petition was dismissed initially but later restored with conditions. The main contention was whether, after admission of the writ petition, the petitioner could be asked to pursue an alternative remedy.

The appellant argued that once a writ petition is admitted, the petitioner should not be relegated to avail an alternative remedy, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the respondent contended that each case's facts and circumstances determine whether the petitioner should pursue an alternative remedy. The Court referred to various Supreme Court decisions to analyze the issue. The Court noted that the mere admission of a writ petition does not preclude the Court from dismissing it on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy. The Court found no error in the Single Judge's decision to relegate the petitioner to pursue an alternative remedy in this case.

Ultimately, the Court held that given the nature of the dispute, it was appropriate to ask the petitioner to pursue an alternative remedy. The writ appeal was dismissed, and the respondent No. 1 was directed to resume her duties.