S RAVI Vs. PRESIDENT GANDHI NAGAR CLUB ADAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 11102 of 2000, dismissing the same on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable and further the writ petitioner has an effective remedy of a civil suit.

(2.) The appellant filed the writ petition No. 11103 of 2000 against the respondents herein and the relevant facts may be stated as hereunder :The appellant became a permanent member of Gandhi Nagar Club, Adayar in the year 1995 on making a remittance of Rs. 60,000/-. He was also paying annual subscription as per rules. That apart, the appellant was also advised to pay children membership fee on the assurance that if he pays a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per child, his children would be given full-fledged membership on their attaining the age of 21 and on that basis, he also paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, expecting his son and daughter would be made members on their completing 21 years in the year 2003 and 2008 respectively. The appellant stated that there was some delay in settling the bills for the month of January, February and March, as there were lot of commitments for him. The appellant gave a cheque for the above bills and immediately he went abroad. As he could not make necessary collection and deposit the amount, there were no sufficient funds in the Bank and with the result, the cheque was dishonoured. The appellant further stated that he received a communication, addressed to him, which was received by his servant on 15th May and he actually saw the same only on 20th May, 2000. Only then, he came to know that the cheques issued had been returned. The letter received by the appellant reads thus :

(3.) We are clearly of the opinion that it is unnecessary to take up the exercise of considering the issue whether a writ is maintainable in the present case. This is because, we are of the view evenassuming the writ petition is maintainable, this Court will not entertain the same when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available and a party may not be allowed to bypass the normal channel of civil and criminal litigation. In this context, we are inclined to refer the ruling of the Apex Court in U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey (1999) 1 SCC 741 : (AIR 1999 SC 753, the Apex Court held thus (at pp. 762 and 763 of AIR) :