Courts do not normally interfere in writ jurisdiction if there is an alternative remedy available. Filing frivolous cases and abusing the court's process will result in serious action and costs imposed on the petitioner.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition discloses how the process of the High Court is being abused by filing frivolous writ petitions in large numbers when there is already a huge burden on this Court due to the large arrears. There was a time in this country when learned counsel used to give correct advice to clients and the preliminary screening of the case was done in the chamber of the learned counsel itself, and if there was no useful purpose in filing a case the learned counsel would frankly say so to his client. Today this hardly happens and the learned counsels file all kinds of frivolous cases thus causing immense problems to this Court, which is already highly overburdened with the pending cases.

( 2 ) THIS malpractice has been committed in this case too. The petitioner has already filed civil suit no. 364 of 2002 for the same relief, which he is claiming in this writ petition. In that suit a temporary injunction was granted, copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which was passed after hearing both the sides. In this temporary injunction order, the operative portion of which is on pages 134 and 135 of the writ petition, the precise relief which the petitioner is praying for in this writ petition has been granted in that temporary injunction. The defendant-respondents were restrained from withdrawing the amount from the respondent Bank and from depositing the same in any other Bank account. If this temporary injunction was not being obeyed then the petitioner should have filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2 a of the CPC, but instead this writ petition has been filed. There can be no clearer case of abuse of the process of this court. This writ petition should never have been filed, and we are constrained to observe that learned counsel in this case has not given correct advice to his client.

( 3 ) IT is well settled that if there is an alternative remedy available this Court does not normally interfere in writ jurisdiction. In this case not only is there an alternative remedy, that remedy is actually being availed of by the petitioner by filing a civil suit, and in fact the petitioner has got a temporary injunction order. This is not an isolated case, and a large number of frivolous petitions are being filed in this Court. It passes all comprehension why such frivolous cases are being filed in this Court, and the time has now come when this Court must start taking serious action in such matters otherwise it will be flooded with Lakhs and Lakhs of frivolous case.

( 4 ) WE therefore, dismiss the writ petition. We also direct the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/= which will be paid by the petitioner within a month from today to the State Government, failing which it will be recovered by the district Magistrate Hathras as arrears of land revenue. Learned Standing counsel as well as Registrar General of this Court, will communicate this order to the District magistrate, Hathras forthwith.

.