S PAPI REDDY CONTRACTOR HYDERABAD Vs. IN RE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had admittedly a right of appeal against the impugned order and he did not avail himself of that right before the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. I do not find this to be an appropriate case for the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage when the impugned order became final.

(2.) Sri C.Mallikharjuna Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the mere availability of an alternative remedy is no bar for the High Court's exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Certainly there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only when there is no other equally effective remedy. But as pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in U. P. State v. Mohd. Nooh, the fact that the aggrieved party has another adequate remedy may be taken into consideration by the superior Court in arriving at a conclusion as to whether it should, in exercise of its discretion, issue a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings. In A. V. Venkateswaran, v. R.S. Wadhwani, it has been clearly laid down by the Supreme Court that if a petitioner has disabled himself from availing himself of the statutory remedy by his own fault in not doing so within the prescribed time, he cannot certainly be permitted to urge that as a ground for the Court dealing with his petition under Article 226 to exercise its discretion in his favour.

(3.) Sri Mallikharjuna Rao, says that the petitioner cannot file an appeal except when he deposits an amount of Rs. 8,000, and that, therefore, the writ may be admitted. I am unable to find any substance in this submission. Where there is a statutory right of appeal against the proceeding of any authority and certain conditions are to be satisfied for the institution of the appeal, it would not be open to the party having the right of appeal to come to this Court with an applicatiop for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution so as to avoid the conditions for the institution of, the appeal. Ordinarily the High Court will refuse to entertain a pstition under Article 226 of the Constitution when another remedy is open to the party. It is only in exceptional cases where it Is demonstrably clear that the authority whose proceedings are in question, acted with utter lack of jurisdiction or in Flagrant excsss of its jurisdiction or acted in accordance with provisions of law which are void, the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution even if there is an alternative remedy. Admittedly, the Commissioner for workmen's compensation who passed the impugned order had every jurisdiction to pass the order. It cannot be said that there is any such total lack of jurisdiction on the part of the authority so as to warrant this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This writ petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.