Order The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 but is merely a matter to be taken into account in exercising its discretion to issue the writ or not. At that stage the Court would consider not the mere existence of the remedy but its reality, adequacy, and effectiveness. Therefore the proper course for the office is to draw the attention of counsel to the existence of the alternative remedy and to the possibility of the writ being dismissed on that ground, so that the petitioner might not later be mulcted with costs. Secondly, the office will also bring this fact to the notice of the Court at the time of the admission so that the Court might be apprised of this circumstance before a rule nisi is issued. The numbering of the writ petition, however, need not be refused on this ground. In regard to the second objection as to whether the petitioner had obtained the permission of the head of his department before filing the petition, that is not a matter for the office at all, nor even for the Court in disposing of the writ. If the service rules prescribe that without prior permission no writ could be filed against Government-I am not aware of any in this case-the filing of the writ without permission might be a ground for taking disciplinary action against the officer, but certainly not a ground for rejecting the petition. Article 226 does not impose such a qualification and the Court cannot read any such into the article. I would only add that it is not quite clear to me whether a rule which imposed such a ban would be valid at all seeing that the Constitution by Article 220 had granted a right to every citizen-and this would include Government servants-to approach the High Courts for redress where violation of the law is made out. It is sufficient to say that a writ petition cannot be refused to be numbered on this ground. R.M. ----- Order accordingly.