HANUMAN DAS CHHAGAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE special appeals are disposed of by this common judgment and order as both of them are arising out of common judgment and order dated 25. 9. 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions on various grounds.

(2.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Shrimali for the appellants vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed grave error in dismissing the writ petitions only on the ground of alternative remedy. He submitted that though the petitioners had alternative remedy available to them before the Civil Court by way of civil suit, the said remedy could not be said to be efficacious remedy. Therefore, it cannot be said to be alternative remedy. He submitted that the remedy should not only be alternative, but it should be efficacious. He also submitted that both the writ petitions were of the year 1994 and pending before this Court for nearly 6 years, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the learned Single Judge to dismiss both the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.

(3.) APART from that under the contract there was an arbitration clause itself, therefore, if the petitioners were of the opinion that it would take long time in getting the civil suit decided then alteast, they should have opted for arbitration proceedings as provided under the Arbitration Clause mentioned in the contract itself. In the case of M/s. Shreeji Industries, Jodhpur vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. (9), it has been held by this Court that where remedy by civil suit or arbitration is available to the petitioners, then this Court would not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.