A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is barred if an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under any other law.

C. R. Thakur, J.—Shri Lekh Ram petitioner was working as a conductor in the Transport Department of the Himachal Pradesh Government. On 30-4-1968 he was detailed on duty on Bus No. HIM 3538 on the Laungani-Simla route. The bus was checked on the way by Shri Lal Chand, Checker, of the Himachal Pradesh Government Transport near Salagwahan about two K.M. from Jahu. He found six passengers travelling without ticket against ticket No. 734057 amounting to Rs. 70.80P which ticket was issued after the check had been done by the Checker.

2. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and his explanation was called. Subsequent to that an Inquiry Officer, Shri M. L. Sood, was appointed vide Annexure H, dated 17th December, 1968 to probe into the matter. But, subsequently, it appears that vide Annexure I, dated 24th December 1969 the General Manager remitted the case of disciplinary proceedings against Shri Lekh Ram for holding equiry into the allegations de novo according to the provisions of rule 14, and he appointed Shri Jamohan Lal Superintendent as a Presenting Officer to present the case on behalf of the department. After the enquiry, etc. was concluded the penalty of removal from service was proposed and a show cause notice was given to the delinquent. He filed hit representation but the same was also not found satisfactory and as such a penalty of removal from service was impesed on the delinquent with effect from the date of service of the order, dated 24th June 1971. He had, therefore, challenged this order of removal from service by this writ petition.

3. The writ petition was filed in August 1971 and was admitted on 8th November, 1971. Thereafter the case was not put up before the Court for hearing till 13th April, 1978. Shri O. P. Sharma, who had appeared for the petitioner had filed an application, OMP 583/78, for substitution of the Commissioner Transport, Himachal Pradesh, Simla by the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Simla, because by that time the Himachal Pradesh Government Transport had ceased to exist and a Corporation had been established. That application was not opposed by Shri D. K. Khanna, who is the standing counsel for the Transport Corporation. The Corporation, was, therefore, substituted in place of the Commissioner Transport, Himachal Pradesh, Simla.

4. Shri Khanna raised a preliminary objection that in view of the amendment of Article 226 of the Constitution by section 58 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 the petition had abated, inasmuch as there was an alternative remedy provided which the petitioner had failed to avail. Under clause (3) of the amended Article 226 no petition for the redress of any injury referred to in sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) of Cl. (1) shall be entertained if any other remedy for such redress is provided for by or under any other law for the time being in force. Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of clause (1) of the aforesaid Article read as under: "(b) for the redress of any injury of a substantial nature by reason of the contravention of any other provision of this Constitution or any provision of any enactment or Ordinance or any order, rule, regulation, bye-law or other instrument made thereunder ; or (c) for the redress of any injury by reason of any illegality in any proceedings by or before any authority under any provision referred to in sub-clause (b) where such illegality has resulted in substantial failure of justice." Sub-clauses (b) and (c) if read in conjunction with clause (3) would go to show that no petition for the redress of any injury of a substantial nature by reason of the contravention of any rule, or for the redress of any injury by reason of any illegality in any proceedings by or before any authority under any provision referred to in sub-clause (b) where such illegality has resulted in substantial failure of justice shall be entertained if any other remedy for such redress is provided.

5. In the instant case the petitioner feels aggr