M PARASIVAM ASARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both parties the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing. I have heard Mr. Thangapandian, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P. Venkatasubramaniam, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) In my opinion the matter is covered by the decision in the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, reported in Union of India v. Darshan Singh . In view of the above decision, the above writ petition is allowed. No costs.

(3.) Mr. P. Venkatasubramaniam however, contends that the petitioner has got effective alternative remedy under the Central Excise Law and he had rushed to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even presenting his case before the adjudicating authorities and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. The writ petition has already been admitted by this Court as early as on 1.8.89 and the matter was pending in this Court for the last few years. That apart, the matter is directly covered by the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High court mentioned above. When once a matter is directly covered by an authoritative pronouncement of a High Court, this Court is not obliged to entertain the plea of the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy.