The availability of an alternative remedy under a specific statute may bar the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the Court's discretion to entertain such a petition must be exercised considering the factual circumstances of each case.

ORDER :

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.

1. When the matter came up on 4th July, 2019, Mr. Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit, Advocate, entered caveat on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 6. Counsel for the petitioner furnished a copy of the writ application, along with annexures thereto, to Mr. Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit. Looking to the urgency expressed and prayer for interim relief insisted upon; the matter was posted for today i.e. 5th July, 2019. Response to the writ application has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 6, who are contesting parties.

2. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 6, raised preliminary objections as to the very maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court relying upon an opinion of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Shobha Singh VS. Rajasthan State Sports Council and ors. SBCWP 12659/2016, decided on 4th December, 2017, Indira Kumari Vs. The State of Raj. And ors. :SBCWP No. 16703/2017, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, on 19th December, 2017. Reference has also been made to the opinion of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopilal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: AIR 1979 Rajasthan 74 and Bhurekhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and 14 ors.: 1976 WLN 73.

3. Opinion of the Apex Court of the land in the case of Empire Jute Company Limited and ors. Vs. Jute Corporation of India Limited and anr.: (2007)14 SSC 680, has also been relied in support of the stand.

4. Per contra; Mr. S.R. Surana, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Rajeev Surana, repelling the preliminary objections, contended that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of judicial review is not barred in view of availability of alternative remedy, as has been held by the Apex Court of the land in the case of Bharti Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.: (2018) 12 SCC 61, Satwati Deswal Vs. State of Haryana and ors.: (2010) 1 SCC 126 and L.K. Verma Vs. HMT Ltd. and Anr.: (2006) 2 SCC 269.

5. For appreciation of the controversy raised herein, the minimal facts of the case which needs to be taken note of are: that the petitioner-General Secretary of Rajasthan State Kabaddi Association (for short, 'RSKA'), has called in question the 'No Confidence Motion' carried out against him on 23rd June, 2019, for he was duly elected office bearers of RSKA.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire proceedings have been conducted illegally and contrary to the provisions of the RSKA Bye-laws. Under the bye-laws, of the association procedure for 'No Confidence Motion' has been specifically detailed out. Further, the petitioner being General Secretary, is the only authority to issue notice to call for a meeting of General Council and he did issue a notice for such a meeting that was to be held on 14th July, 2019.

7. However, in order to dislodge the petitioner from the elected post of General Secretary though his tenure commenced w.e.f. 2016 to 2020; the President, in a vindictive manner, directed the Joint Secretary to call for the meeting and carried out the 'No Confidence Motion', against the petitioner.

8. It is further pointed out that in view of the ongoing election process, the petitioner would be deprived of his legitimate right, if interim order is not granted in his favour at this stage.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as to the preliminary objections as to the very maintainability of the writ application in view of efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner.

10. Indisputably, the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 (for short, 'Act of 2005'), under Section 16, contemplates Conciliation and Arbitration for settlement of disputes, which reads thus:

"16. Conciliation