Sanjib Banerjee, J.

1. The primary similarity in these two references is in their posing the identical ultimate question: whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ought to be entertained in either case. Before any discussion even on the circumstances in which these references came to be made, some ground rules need to be established by the reiteration of a few axiomatic principles. To begin with, every High Court exercises plenary powers of superintendence over all Courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This overwhelming prerogative--not necessarily to merely correct orders but to keep the subordinate fora within the bounds of their authority--is subject to a self-imposed restraint exercised by the High Courts in ordinarily not entertaining any matter for judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India if there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the person seeking to invoke the jurisdiction. It is fundamental that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy does not make a petition otherwise amenable under Article 227 of the Constitution to be not maintainab