ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. A petition filed in the High Court seeking relief under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India was entertained in the year 1993 by the then High Court of Allahabad. Consequent upon re-organisation of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the matter came to be transferred to the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital. On 24.11.2003, when the matter came up for hearing, the High Court formed an opinion that an alternate efficacious remedy of filing a revision as provided by Section 18 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulations on Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was available to the Appellant, the petition did not lie. The Petitioner in the High Court had explained in his petition the circumstances in which it was impracticable then to file the revision and therefore the writ jurisdiction of the High Court was being invoked. That explanation had found favour with the High Court while admitting the petition and issuing rule. After the matter had remained pending for little over 10 years, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. Availability of an alternate efficacious