ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has challenged the order of the High Court dated 25.01.2022, which reads thus:-

“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Arguable questions are made out.

2. Admit.

3. As the petitioner is having alternate remedy, we are refraining ourselves from granting interim relief.”

3. We are surprised to read the impugned order.

4. If the High Court has found that the matter was worth admitting then there was no question of non-considering the issue with regard to grant or refusal of interim relief, on the ground that there is an alternate remedy.

5. When the High Court finds that there is merit in the matter and admits it, then it was also bound to consider as to whether the interim relief should have been granted or not.

6. Non-granting of interim relief on the ground that there is an alternate remedy available is totally contradictory to the earlier part of the order admitting the matter.

7. Non-consideration of the question of grant or refusal of interim relief, in our considered view, would be a failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the High Court.

8. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the High Court. The