STATE OF U P Vs. ALI ABBAS ABDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Appeal has been preferred against the order of learned single Judge dated 7.5.1999 in Writ Petition No. 17039/1984 whereby the learned single Judged allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 17.11.1984.

(2.) We have heard learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. It is contended on behalf of appellant that in view of the statutory remedy being available under U. P. Public Service Tribunal Act, the writ petition was not maintainable and on this score alone, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed but this aspect has not been considered by learned single Judge and. therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has also been placed on reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCC 261.

(3.) It is true that normally where a statute itself prescribes a remedy, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may decline to grant relief in the writ petition until such statutory remedy is exhausted. However, this rule of exhaustion of statutory remedy is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and not a rule of law nor it bars the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in granting relief in appropriate case and exceptional circumstances.