The court determines that an alternative remedy must be pursued unless the order is void, emphasizing the importance of statutory compliance before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

It is the fundamental tenet that when there is a statutory alternative remedy available, a party can be allowed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , only if the order impugned is void or issued without jurisdiction, or in violation of fundamental rights.

2. The appellant, however, challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge because they have been directed to invoke their alternative remedy against Ext.P4, contending that the said order is wrong.

3. As prefatorily said, there is a marked difference between an order which is void and an order which is wrong. In the former, perhaps, a challenge before this Court may be tenable;

but in the latter, the alternative remedy will have to be invoked.

4. We notice that the learned Single Judge has also considered this; but the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the appellant – Sri.Padmanathan K.V., is that his client be offered one more opportunity before the same Authority which passed Ext.P4.

5. We are afraid, for the reason above, we cannot accede to the afore request because, every issue – both in law and facts – can be impelled by the appellant before the Appellate Authority. This is more so, when they do not have a case that the appellate remedy is not efficacious or tenable.

In the afore circumstances, we dismiss this Appeal, confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Sd/-