D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri B. T. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, that this writ petition is not maintainable because of existence of alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order and since alternative remedy of filing appeal against the impugned order has not been availed of by the petitioner the writ petition deserves to be rejected on this preliminary objection.

( 2 ) SHRI S. B. Vakil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B. T. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, have been heard at length on this preliminary objection.

( 3 ) THE impugned order Annexure-A has been passed under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short `act ). Provision for appeal against such order is provided under Section 7-I of the Act which inter alia provides that any person aggrieved by an order under Section 7a may prefer appeal to the Tribunal against such order. As such there is no dispute that there is provision under the Act for alternative remedy by filing appeal against the impugned order. Admittedly, this remedy has not been availed of by the petitioner. The question is whether the writ petition can be entertained even though alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner. Shri S. B. Vakil has drawn my attention to the prayers contained in the writ petition. The main prayer in the writ petition is to issue writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25. 6. 1998 Annexure-A. Thus, in effect, the prayer in the petition is to issue writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order contained in Annexure-A.

( 4 ) SHRI S. B. Vakil has contended that writ of certiorari can be issued even though alternative remedy by filing appeal is there and it has not been availed of. As against this, Shri B. T. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that existence of alternative efficacious remedy bars the maintainability of the petition claiming writ of certiorari. Certain cases were cited by both the sides and I propose to discuss them one by one.

( 5 ) IN Sheela Devi Vs. Jaspal Singh (1991) 1 SCC 209 the apex court found that the respondent had alternative remedy of filing revision under Section 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. This remedy was not availed. The respondent straightaway filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court had re-examined the matter on facts. The order of the High Court was set aside by the apex court and it was directed that the respondent will be at liberty to avail of the alternate remedy of revision, if he so desires. It is thus, clear from this latest pronouncement of the apex court of 13. 7. 1999 that existence of alternative remedy bars entertainment of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also a case where writ of certiorari was prayed before the High Court.

( 6 ) SHRI S. B. Vakil on the other hand referred to the apex courts verdict in State of U. P. Vs. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86 and contended that writ of certiorari can be issued in such matters even though right of appeal and provision of appeal is there in the statute. The apex court in this case observed that there is rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie where there is only no other equally effective remedy. Provided the requisite grounds exist, certiorari will lie although a right of appeal has been conferred by the statute. The fact that the aggrieved party has another and 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 and decisions of inferior courts subordinate to it and ordinarily the superior court will decline to interfere until the aggrieved party has exha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document