Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
the National Commission. In fact section 21
of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the
National Commission which confers on it
not only the original jurisdiction of value of
certain amount but also deals with the
jurisdiction to entertain appeal against the
order of the State Commission and also to
exercise revisional jurisdiction. Whereas
section 19 of the Act provides as to which
order of the State Commission is
appealable, therefore, sections 19 and 21 of
the Act have to be read together to decide
the question as to whether a particular order
is appealable or not.
4. The impugned order dated 9.8.2010
has been passed by the State Commission in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction and there
is no bar of second revision. As such the
order passed by the State Commission in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction can very
well be subjected to revisional jurisdiction
of the National Commission under section
21 (b) of the Act.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the
petitioner has an appropriate alternative
efficacious remedy by way of filing a
revision under section 21 (b) of the Act
against the impugned order dated 9.8.2010
(Annexure 1), therefore, it does not appear
to be just and expedient to exercise extra
ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
6. The Supreme Court has almost
settled the legal position regarding
maintainability of writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a
case where alternative remedy is available
to the petitioner. Some of the important
cases are being referred to hereinbelow.
7. In Whirlpool Corporation vs.
Registrar of Trade Marks and others, AIR
1999 SC 22, the Supreme Court has held
that under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the High Court, having regard to the facts of
the case, has a discretion to entertain a Writ
Petition. But the High Court has imposed
upon itself certain restrictions one of which
is that if an effective and efficacious remedy
is available, the High Court would not
normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the
alternative remedy has been consistently
held by this Court not to operate as a bar in
at least three contingencies, namely, where
the writ petition has been filed for the
enforcement of any of the Fundamental
Rights or where there has been a violation
of the principle of natural justice or where
the order or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged.
8. A similar view has been expressed
in the case of State of H.P. and others vs.
Gujrat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and another
(2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 499, in
which the Supreme Court observed after
relying on few important earlier decisions
that except for a period when Article 226
was amended by the Constitution (Forty
second Amendment) Act, 1976, the power
relating to alternative remedy has been
considered to be a rule of self imposed
limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy,
convenience and discretion and never a rule
of law. Despite the existence of an
alternative remedy, it is within the
jurisdiction or discretion of the High Court
to grant relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be
lost sight of that though the matter relating
to an alternative remedy has nothing to do
with the jurisdiction of case, normally the
High Court should not interfere if there is an
adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If
somebody approaches the High Court
without availing the alternative remedy