IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the discretionary nature of the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy and the wider power conferred to the High Court under Article 226, ultimately holding the Writ Petition as maintainable.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri V.Maheswar Reddy, Ld. Government Pleader for General Administration Department appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. In view of the detailed Order passed by this Court in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 in this Writ Petition on 6/7/2023, this Court is of the opinion that the elementary facts which are recorded in the said Order are not required to be repeated herein. Therefore, shorn of such details as adverted in the Order dtd. 6/7/2023, the issue that is to be now decided is with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition and also whether the Impugned Memo bearing No.GAD01-PERS0IPS(LEAV)/10/ 2023-SC-C, dtd. 30/6/2023 (Ex.P1) is legally sustainable or not. Maintainability of Writ Petition:

3. Though this Court has dealt with this issue in some detail in the Interim Order dtd. 6/7/2023, in view of the sustained objection of Sri V.Maheswar Reddy, Ld. Government Pleader for General Administration Department appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the issue of maintainability of the Writ Petition, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the maintainability of this Writ Petition once again.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has submitted that in an appropriate case, in spite of availability of alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction and the same is purely discretionary. In support of his submission, the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has referred to Harbanslal Sahnia and another vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited,(2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 107. The Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would refer to Paragraph No.7 of the said Order which is usefully extracted hereunder:

"7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies; (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. (See Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade marks ((1998) 8 SCC 1)). The present case attracts applicability of the first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the petitioners dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellant should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings."

5. The Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also submitted that during the second round of suspension of the Writ Petitioner by Order dtd. 28/6/2023, it was specifically stated that during the subsistence of the suspension, the Writ Petitioner herein is directed to remain only in the Head Quarter i.e. at Vijayawada and not to move out of the Head Quarter without prior permission of the Respondents. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that without prejudice to his right of entitlement to approach this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, that the very factum of imposing restriction to move out of Head Quarter without the permission of the Respondents, is a ground that would entitle the Petitioner to approach this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 for seeking complete justice. He would also submit that under the present circumstances, his attempt to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal which is situated in Hyderabad, would have