RABINDRA KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the points of law are always available to the Bar to highlight the same, but it is for the Bench to appreciate the same in the proper perspective.

(2.) A short point, yet quite interesting, is raised in the instant case. The writ petitioners, namely, Rabindra Kumar Das and Sri Ashok Kumar Sahoo, have filed the present writ petition against the State of Orissa and Ors. asking for the following reliefs : '.......issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the reservation made by the Election Officer de hors the Rules vide Annexure -2 shall not be struck down and the constituencies shall not be carved out and reserved as per the recommendation made by the committee and if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause to make the said rule absolute by issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case......'

(3.) AT the time of entertaining the writ petition on 23.12.1997 attention of the Court was drawn to Rule 6(3) of the Orissa Co -operative Societies Election Rules, 1992 and the decision reported in AIR 1994 Ori. I (Kailash v. Secretary). However, the matter was entertained to resolve the dispute and leave was granted to the opposite parties to file counter affidavit. The counter affidavit has been filed. The main point canvassed before us as to whether the writ petition is maintainable and as to whether the petitioners have any alternative remedy as contained in the Act itself and it would not be efficacious for the writ Court to entertain the dispute and resolve the same.