( 1 ) THE petitioner had admittedly a right of appeal against the impugned order and he did not avail himself of that right before the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. I do not find this to be an appropriate case for the exercise of this Court s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage when the impugned order became final.

( 2 ) SRI C. Mallikharjuna Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the mere availability of an alternative remedy is no bar for the High Court s exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Certainly there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only when there is no other equally effective remedy. But as pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in U. P. State v. Mohd. Nooh, the fact that the aggrieved party has another adequate remedy may be taken into consideration by the superior court in arriving at a conclusion as to whether it should, in exercise of its discretion, issue a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings. In A. V. Venkateswaran, v. R. S. Wadhwani, it has been clearly laid down by the Supreme Court that if a petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document