LALJI PRASAD GUPTA Vs. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the very outset, without entering into the merits of the case Sri V. K. Upadhyay, learned counsel representing Banaras Hindu University (for short "University") and Sri S. K. Pandey, learned counsel representing respondent No. 4, raised a preliminary objection at this stage of admission that the grounds and plea as raised by the petitioner in writ petition are available to him to be raised by means of a statutory representation to the Visitor of the University under the Provisions of Section 5 (7) of the Banaras Hindu University Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") and it is the Visitor who has to decide the matter in issue involving orders passed by the Executive Council or any other authority empowered under the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ petition as framed and filed suffers from the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedy.

(2.) TO appreciate the preliminary objection as raised by the learned counsel appearing for the University and respondent No. 4, it is necessary to give short facts leading to this writ petition.

(3.) DR. Padia, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in reply to the preliminary objection, submitted that both the orders referred to above, which are under challenge in this writ petition, have been passed by way of review by the authorities and, as such, are without jurisdiction, inasmuch as in the absence of any statutory provision a statutory authority cannot review its order. For this proposition of law, the learned counsel cited numerous decisions of this court and the Apex Court and in this background, he submitted that the orders impugned being without jurisdiction, alternative remedy, if any, is not an absolute bar for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.