VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN DEALER SELECTION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that the proceedings before the Dealers Selection Board, Lucknow-II, initiated on the basis of review petition dated 4.2.2002, filed by respondent No. 4, and the notice dated 5.2.2002, issued to the petitioner may be quashed.

(2.) The Indian Oil Corporation issued an advertisement on 28.6.2000 inviting applications for appointment as dealers for retail outlet for petrol and diesel in various places including Srinagar, District Mahoba. The Dealers Selection Board held interview of the aspirants who had responded to the advertisement and, thereafter, prepared a merit list of the selected candidates. In the said list, Brijesh Kumar Misra, respondent No. 4, was placed at Sl. No. 1 and the petitioner, Vijai Bahadur Singh, was placed at Sl. No. 2. The petitioner challenged the selection of respondent No. 4 by filing a representation on the ground that he was not a domicile or permanent resident of district Mahoba but was a permanent resident of district Teekamgarh (Madhya Pradesh) and, therefore, was not eligible for being appointed as a dealer in district Mahoba. He also filed Writ Petition No. 6351 (M/B) of 2001 in this Court. which was disposed of on 2.1.2002 with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Dealers Selection Board, Lucknow-II, and the same shall be decided by the selection board after hearing the petitioner and respondent No, 4. The petitioner then made a fresh representation to the Dealers Selection Board to which a reply was given by respondent No. 4. After considering the matter, the Chairman of the Board passed an order on 28.1.2002. holding that respondent No. 4 is not a resident of district Mahoba, but is a resident of district Teekamgarh (M.P.) and, as such, he was not eligible and his selection was liable to be cancelled. Thereafter, respondent No. 4, preferred a detailed review petition before the Board on 4.2.2002, praying that the order passed on 28.1.2002 be reviewed and the merit list declared on 6.1.2001 be restored. The Dealers Selection Board issued a notice to the petitioner on 5.2.2002, on the review petition asking him to submit his reply along with necessary documents and affidavits, etc. by 5.3.2002. The writ petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings initiated on the basis of the review petition filed by respondent No. 4 and also the notice issued to the petitioner.

(3.) The first question which requires consideration is whether this Court should entertain a writ petition against a notice as the petitioner can file a reply to the same and satisfy the Dealers Selection Board that the order passed by it on 28.1.2002 is correct and there is no ground to review the same. Article 226 of the Constitution confers power upon the High Court to issue writs, directions or orders for enforcement of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and also for any other purpose. The remedy provided under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary one and the High Court is not always bound to grant relief even though a legal right may have been infringed. The existence of an alternative remedy is an important consideration which the High Court takes into consideration while deciding the question whether discretion should be exercised or not. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions but the exercise of jurisdiction is discretionary. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. Resort to this jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by Statute. Thus, the Court will refuse to exercise its discretion in favour, of a litigant who has an alternative remedy for redress of his grievances.