(1.) AGAINST the judgment dated 18. 5. 99 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition No. 981/99 filed by the petitioner-Sangh has preferred this Special Appeal.
(2.) IT was vehemently submitted by Mr. M. Mridul, Senior Advocate for original petitioner that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in dismissing the writ petition only on the ground of alternative remedy. He submits that before Tribunal, it will take at least 10 years for finally adjudicating the matter. He, therefore, submits that this Court should not have dismissed the appeal on the ground of alternative remedy. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Venkatachalam vs. A. Swamickan and another (1 ). As against that learned counsel Mr. M. R. Singhvi appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 Caveator submitted that when there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner and that the learned Single Judge though it fit not to entertain the petition on this ground then certainly this Court will not entertain such petition in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Gopilal Teli vs. State of Rajasthan and Others