IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.18646/2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
N.S.Kusuma D/o Shikharesh Aged about 28 years Resident of House No.288/A, Extension Area, Viveknagar, Bengaluru-560 047.
(By Sri Prakash Salmani, Advocate) AND:
Indian Overseas Bank Central Office Industrial Relations Department No.763, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002, Represented by its General Manager.
…Petitioner …Respondent This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to allow this Writ Petition in terms of the order dated 11.09.2018 passed by this Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.26416/2018 vide Annexure-G by quashing Annexure-A dated 05.06.2014 issued by the General Manager of respondent bank as has been quashed in identical matters in order dated 20.03.2015 passed in Writ Petition Nos.123-124/2015 vide Annexure-C which is confirmed by judgment dated 02.12.2015 in Writ Appeal Nos.1334-1335/2015 vide Annexure-D, same refused to be interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in proceedings dated 22.02.2016 in SLP[Civil] Nos.4387-4388/2016 vide Annexure-D.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R In the instant petition petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
(a) Allow this writ petition in terms of the order dated 11.09.2018 passed by this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.26416/2018 vide Annexure-G by quashing Annexure-A in Ref No.IRD/184/113/2014-15 dated 05.06.2014 issued by the General Manager of Respondent Bank as has been quashed in identical matters in Order dated 20.03.2015 passed in Writ Petition Nos.123-124/2015 vide Annexure-C which is confirmed by judgment dated 02.12.2015 in Writ Appeal Nos.1334- 1335/2015 vide Annexure-D, same refused to be interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in proceedings dated 22.02.2016 in SLP (Civil) No.4387-4388/2016 vide Annexure-D;
(b) Issue any other order/direction as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case and to allow this writ petition with costs.
2. Undisputedly petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of appeal. Petitioner was directed to file an affidavit that there is no statutory remedy of appeal against the order of termination passed by the Indian Overseas Bank. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that he has statutory remedy of appeal under relevant regulations. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in identical matter, this Court entertained writ petition and allowed the petition and it has attained finality before the Division Bench of this Court and before Supreme Court.
3. Perusal of the learned Single Judge order at Annexure-C dated 20.3.2015 passed in Writ Petition Nos.123-124/2015, this Court has not examined whether petitioner therein had remedy of statutory appeal against the order of termination or not. Undisputedly, petitioner has remedy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K.Zalpuri and Others reported in AIR 2016 SC 3006 examined under what circumstances writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained. Paragraph 20 of the said judgment reads as under:
“20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage from City and Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus:-
“The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty- bound to consider whether:
Adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
The petition reveals all materials facts;
The petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
Person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
Ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
Grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.”
(Emphasis Supplied) 4. One of the criteria laid down by the Apex Court is that exhausting statutory remedy of appeal in the event of such provision is available. That apart writ petition can be filed even if the statutory appeal is available only on the ground of competency as held by the Supreme Court in the Case of Dr.Smt.Kuntesh Gupta Vs. Management of Hindu Kanya reported in AIR 1987 SC 2186, it has been held as under:
“It is well established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. When an authority has acted wholly without jurisdiction, the High Court should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy.
In the instant case, the Vice Chancellor had no power of review and the exercise of such a power by her was absolutely without jurisdiction. Indeed, the order passed by the Vice Chancellor on review was a nullity; such an order could surely be challenged before the High Court by a petition under Article 226 and, in our opinion, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy was available to the appellant under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act.
5. In view of these facts and circumstances, cited decision by the petitioner’s counsel has no assistance to the present petition in not exhausting remedy of appeal.
6. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail statutory remedy of appeal in terms of regulations.
Sd/- JUDGE AP*