ORDER M. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri H. R. Misra has appeared for the respondents.
2. Against the impugned resolution of the Committee of Management of the Co-operative Societies dated 22.3.2003 the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a representation under Section 128 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act and/or to apply for arbitration under Rule 454 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Rules.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when an order is wholly without jurisdiction or when there is violation of principles of natural justice a writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. He has relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Jagat Narain Singh v. District Assistant Registrar, 1995 (3) UPLBEC 1465 and the Supreme Court decision in Institute of Chartered Accountants v. L.K. Batra, AIR 1987 SC 71 ; Babu Ram v. Zila Parishad, AIR 1969 SC 556 and S.T.O. v. Shiv Ratan. AIR 1966 SC 142, etc.
4. In our opinion, the aforesaid decisions do not lay down any absolute proposition that a writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy merely because it is alleged that there is violation of natural justice or that the impugned order was without jurisdiction vide M.K. Verma v. State, 2001 (2) ESC 925. Writ is a discretionary remedy and alternative remedy is a ground for dismissing a writ petition by refusing to exercise such discretion.
5. No doubt despite the existence of alternative remedy, a writ petition is maintainable because alternative remedy is not an absolute bar. However, since writ is a discretionary remedy, the Court should not ordinarily exercise its discretion when an alternative remedy exists. The allegation of violation of natural justice or allegation that the Impugned order was without jurisdiction may be just one of the considerations which the Court can take into consideration in deciding whether to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, but as already observed above, there is no absolute bar that writ petition can never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy merely because there is an allegation of violation of natural justice or that the impugned order was without jurisdiction.
6. At present in Allahabad High Court, about eight lacs cases or so are pending and this Court cannot indulge in the luxury to entertain writ petitions if alternative remedy exists, otherwise the Court will be flooded with more cases and arrears may further increase manifold. It is only in rare and exceptional cases that this Court should interfere when there is an alternative remedy exists. The present case does not fall in that exceptional category.
7. The petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. However, if the petitioner files a representation under Rule 454 or under Section 128, the same will be decided by the authority concerned very expeditiously preferably within six weeks of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned.