Skip to content


In Re: C.D. Venkataraman, District Magistrate (Judicial), Trichinopoly - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 1131 of 1956 and S.R. No. 31160 of 1956
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Mad338
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantIn Re: C.D. Venkataraman, District Magistrate (Judicial), Trichinopoly
Advocates:K.V. Venkatasubramania Aiyar and ;G.R. Jagadisan, Advs.
Excerpt:
- orderrajagopala ayyangar, j.1. the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 but is merely a matter to be taken into account in exercising its discretion to issue the writ or not. at that stage the court would consider not the mere existence of the remedy but its reality, adequacy and effectiveness. therefore the proper course for the office is to draw the attention of counsel to the existence of the alternative remedy and to the possibility of the writ being dismissed on that ground, so that the petitioner might not later be mulcted with costs. secondly, the office will also bring this fact to the notice of the court at the time of the admission so that the court might be apprised of this circumstance before a rule nisi is issued......
Judgment:
ORDER

Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.

1. The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 but is merely a matter to be taken into account In exercising its discretion to issue the writ or not. At that stage the Court would consider not the mere existence of the remedy but its reality, adequacy and effectiveness. Therefore the proper course for the office is to draw the attention of counsel to the existence of the alternative remedy and to the possibility of the writ being dismissed on that ground, so that the petitioner might not later be mulcted with costs. Secondly, the office will also bring this fact to the notice of the Court at the time of the admission so that the Court might be apprised of this circumstance before a rule nisi is issued. The numbering of the writ petition however need not be refused on this ground.

2. In regard to the second objection as towhether the petitioner had obtained the permissionof the head of his department before filing thepetition that is not a matter for the office at allnor even for the Court in disposing of the writ.If the service rules prescribe that without priorpermission no writ could be filed against Government--I am not aware of any in this case--thefiling of the writ without permission might be aground for taking disciplinary action against theofficer--but certainly not a ground for rejectingthe petition. Article 226 does not impose such aqualification and the Court cannot read any suchinto the article. I would only add that it is notquite clear, to me whether a rule which imposedsuch a ban would be valid at all seeing that theConstitution by Article 226 had granted a right toevery citizen--and this would include Governmentservants--to approach the High Courts for redresswhere violation of the law is made out. It is sufficient to say that a writ petition cannot be refusedto be numbered on this ground.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //