DEPUTY DIRECTOR Vs. R. VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was the respondent in the writ petition, against the order of the learned Single Judge, who, while expunging the observations made, modified the penalty imposed from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there exists an alternative remedy and, therefore, without exhausting the same, the writ petition ought not to have been entertained. The observation has been made based upon the relevant materials and the learned Single Judge has committed an error in reducing the penalty without any basis.

(3.) We do not wish to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further more, the adjudicating authority passed an order as early as in the year 2004 and the writ petition was filed immediately thereafter. Hence, driving the respondent to exhaust the alternative remedy, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, would be in the interest of the justice.