Alternative remedies do not bar the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226, especially in cases involving fundamental rights or jurisdictional issues.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.-A preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India against the order impugned dated 23.6.2024 passed by Vice Chancellor as remedy lies under Section 68 of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1973') before the Chancellor.

2. The question as to whether an alternative remedy is an absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 has been under constant legal vigil of not only the Apex Court but also of this Court. From time to time the Hon'ble Apex Court had dealt with the issue in extenso and in categorical terms held that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution.

3. The matter as to exhaustion of statutory remedy came up for consideration before Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 and the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :

''... It must be borne in mind that there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy. It is well established that, provided the requisite grounds exist, certiorari will lie although a right of appeal has been conferred by statute, (Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 11, p. 130 and the cases cited there). 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 exhausted his other statutory remedies, if any. But this rule requiring the exhaustion of statutory remedies before the writ will be granted is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law and instances are numerous where a writ of certiorari has been issued in spite of the fact that the aggrieved party had other adequate legal remedies.''

4. The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in case of A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506, considered the above view and held as under :

''10. The passages in the judgments of this Court we have extracted would indicate (1) that the two exceptions which the learned Solicitor-General formulated to the normal Rule as to the effect of the existence of an adequate alternative remedy were by no means exhaustive, and (2) that even beyond them a discretion vested in the High Court to have entertained the petition and granted the petitioner relief notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. We need only add that the broad lines of the general principles on which the Court should act having been clearly laid down, their application to the facts of each particular case must necessarily be dependent on a variety of individual facts which must govern the proper exercise of the discretion of the Court, and that in a matter which is thus pre-eminently one of discretion, it is not possible or even if it were, it would not be desirable to lay down inflexible Rules which should be applied with rigidity in every case which comes up before the Court.''

5. Another Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, Companies District I Calcutta and another, AIR 1961 SC 372, again had the occasion to consider the issue in regard to alternative remedy in a matter relating to income tax and the Court held as under :

''26. Mr Sastri next pointed out that at the stage when the Income Tax Officer issued the notices he was not acting judicially or quasi judicially and so a writ of certiorari or prohibition cannot issue. It is well-settled however that though the writ of prohibition or certiorari will not issue against an executive