M R ARJUNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) PETITIONER M. R. Arjuna, who was a Wireless Inspector (Maintenance) in the Northern Railway, has filed this writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) I have to see whether in these circumstances the alternative remedy availed of by the petitioner is a bar for filing writ application before this Court. Mr. Mridul, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged that statutory remedy is no bar for issuing a writ of certiorari and especially when the order of the subordinate tribunal suffers from a patent defect of violating the principles of natural justice. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on State of U. P. v. Mohammad Noon (2 ). Learned Chief Justice, while dealing with this question whether the presence of a statutory remedy debars the petitioner from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 22b of the Constitution, observed as follows: - "in the next place it must be borne in mind that there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy. It is well established that, provided the requisite grounds exist, certiorari will lie although a right of appeal has been conferred by statute, (Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd, Edn. , Vol 11. p. 130 and the cases cited there ). The fact that the aggrieved party has another and 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 and decisions of inferior courts subordinate to it and ordinarily the superior court will decline to interfere until the aggrieved party has exhausted his other statutory remedies, if any. But this rule requiring the exhaustion of statutory remedies before the writ will be granted is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law and instances are numerous where a writ of certiorari has been issued in spite of the fact that the aggrieved party had other adequate legal remedies. In the King vs. Postmaster-General; Ex parte Carmichael, 1926-A KB 291, a certiorari was issued, although the aggrieved party had an alternative remedy by way of appeal. It has been held that the superior Court will readily issue a certiorari in a case where there has been a denial of natural justice before a Court of summary jurisdiction. The case of Rex vs. Wandsworth Justices; Ex parte Read, 1942-1 KB 281 is an authority in point. "