S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) ). Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners, in all 12 in number, have filed this Special Civil Application before this Court and prayed for following reliefs :"allow this Special Civil Application by quashing and setting aside the action on the part of respondents of not including the names of the petitioners in the list of eligible employees for allotment of plots in Gandhidham by respondent no. 2 by issuing an appropriate writ, direction or order under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Be pleased to quash and set aside the Circular dated 10-12-1998 and direct the respondents not to conduct any proceedings for allotment of plots in NU4 at Gandhidham and not to allot any plots to any employee of the respondent no. 2 till the final disposal of this petition. " ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham made out a scheme for allotment of plots to its employees. As per the allotment scheme, the petitioners applied for allotment of plots in the year 1989 after completing all necessary formalities. The grievance of the petitioners in this vspecial Civil Application is that the Kandla Port Trust without inviting or taking objections from the affected persons, the respondents revised the scheme earlier formulated and started allotment of plots in accordance with the revised scheme. In the submission of the petitioners, the persons to whom now allotments are made as per revised scheme are ineligible persons. From the Circular of the kandla Port Trust, I find that the Government has accorded its approval for allotment of plots to 770 K. P. T. employees in NU4. The matter for consideration of the applications for allotment of plots by drawing of lots was fixed on 3-1-1999 and the petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 4 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) at Gandhidham (Kutch ). Copy of the plaint is annexed at Annexure "e" to this petition. In the said suit the petitioners prayed for following reliefs :" (I) to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to get allotment of plot of size 101. 25 sq. mtrs. , 140 sq. mtrs. , 140 sq. mtrs. , 101. 25 sq. mtrs. , 170 sq. mtrs. , and 140 sq. mtrs. In the said suit the petitioners prayed for following reliefs :" (I) to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to get allotment of plot of size 101. 25 sq. mtrs. , 140 sq. mtrs. , 140 sq. mtrs. , 101. 25 sq. mtrs. , 170 sq. mtrs. , and 140 sq. mtrs. , respectively, (ii) to declare that the act of defendant to exclude the names of plaintiffs from the "list of proposed employees for allotment of plots" for draw of lots dated 3-1-1999 is totally illegal, null, void and against the principles of natural justice, (iii) to grant permanent injunction ordering the defendants to allot the plots to the plaintiffs of size 101. 25 sq. mtrs. , 140 sq. mtrs. , 140 sq. mtrs. 101. 25 sq. mtrs. , 170 sq. mtrs. , and 140 sq. mtrs. , respectively. (iv) to grant the permanent injunction restraining the defendants from conducting the draw of lots (plots) on 3-1-1999 or any other date". ( 3 ) IN the suit aforesaid, the Court has granted ad interim injunction. On 17-2-1999 the plaintiffs filed purshis for withdrawal of the same and the Court has permitted the withdrawal of the suit. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that once the scheme has been framed for allotment of plots and applications are invited then respondents have no authority to deviate from it. Lastly, it is contended that even if the respondent No. 2 wants to revise the earlier scheme for allotment of plots, it could have been done only after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It has next been contended by the learned Counsel for petitioners that the action of the respondents in not including the names of the petitioners in the list of candidates to be considered for allotment of plots is illegal. ( 4 ) I have given my thoughful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for petitioners. ( 5 ) ON being asked by the Court the learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs have withdrawn the suit as in the written statement the respondents have taken the objection that the suit is not maintainable. ( 6 ) AFTER going through the prayers made by the petitioners in the Special civil Application as well as in the suit, I find same are identical. ( 6 ) AFTER going through the prayers made by the petitioners in the Special civil Application as well as in the suit, I find same are identical. Substantially, in both the proceedings same reliefs have been prayed for by the petitioners. The learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that the policy decision of the kandla Port Trust has been laid down with the approval of the Union of India and hence the civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. It is urged by the learned Counsel for petitioners that it is the question of the breach of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and proper remedy in the matter is only to file Special Civil Application before this Court and not suit before the civil court. In the matter of availing of remedy, no doubt, it is the choice of the litigant. But once the litigant has chosen to avail of particular remedy, he has to stick to that remedy and merely on his choice or desire, he cannot be permitted to shift to another remedy. It is also otherwise not permissible to a litigant to avail of two parallel remedies simultaneously. Here, in the instant case, not only the petitioners have already availed of remedy of filing civil suit but the civil Court protected them by granting interim relief which continued. The question which now falls for consideration of this Court is in the facts of this case, it is justified if this Court permits the petitioners to file this petition. As stated earlier and again stated at the cost of repetition, that for the same relief based on the same cause of action the very grievance made in this petition, petitioners filed civil suit. It is true that the civil suit has been withdrawn by the petitioners but only to file this petition before this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioners gives out the ground for the withdrawal of the suit is that in the written statement, the respondents had raised objection that the suit is not maintainable in the civil Court. I have to consider whether this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is correct or not. The petitioner, on the record of this Special Civil Application, has not produced the copy of written statement filed in the suit by the respondents. I have to consider whether this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is correct or not. The petitioner, on the record of this Special Civil Application, has not produced the copy of written statement filed in the suit by the respondents. The purshis filed by the petitioners to withdraw the suit is on the record of this petition at page 72 which reads as under :"that the plaintiffs abovenamed beg to submit as under : that the defendants have filed written statement-cum-reply inter alia containing that they have amended the policy and they have also got approval of the competent authority. That there is violation of fundamental rights of the plaintiffs as such the plaintiffs want to file a writ petition before the Honble high Court of Gujarat to challenge the said amended policy and want to join union of India as a party. It is, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice the plaintiffs may kindly be allowed to withdraw the present suit with a conditional liberty to file fresh writ petition before Honble High Court of Gujarat. " ( 7 ) FIRSTLY, it is mentioned therein that the defendant has filed written statement-cum-reply inter alia contending that they have amended the policy and they have also got the approval thereof from the competent authority. Then, the petitioners stated in the purshis that there is violation of fundamental rights of the plaintiffs, as such, the plaintiffs want to file writ petition before the honble High Court of Gujarat to challenge the said amended policy and want to join the Union of India as party. Prayer has been made that in the interest of justice the plaintiffs may kindly be allowed to withdraw the present suit with liberty to file fresh writ petition before the Honble Gujarat High Court. The order passed by the trial Court on this purshis reads as under :plaintiffs have given purshis at Exh. 23 and intend to file writ petition before the High Court of Gujarat. Hence, in view of the contents of the purshis withdraw the suit. Hence disposed of by withdrawal. No order of costs. "the order aforesaid has been passed on 17-2-1999, i. e. , on the very day when the purshis has been filed. 23 and intend to file writ petition before the High Court of Gujarat. Hence, in view of the contents of the purshis withdraw the suit. Hence disposed of by withdrawal. No order of costs. "the order aforesaid has been passed on 17-2-1999, i. e. , on the very day when the purshis has been filed. On reading of the purshis as well as the order passed by the trial Court thereon, I find that the petitioners withdrew the suit only as they now want to avail of the remedy of writ petition. From these facts, it is clear that the ground for withdrawal of the suit is not for the reasons that the other side raised objection that suit is not maintainable and Union of india is a necessary party thereto. The Court has not decided that the suit is not maintainable or they have been given legal opinion that the suit is not maintainable. That the suit has been filed by the petitioners in the month of january, 1999, i. e. , after revised scheme of the allotment has been framed, and there is nothing new which has come up after filing of the suit. Even if it is taken that the respondents have taken objection that the suit is not maintable, I fail to see any justification in the action of the petitioners in withdrawing the suit. It is for the Court to decide whether the suit is maintainable or not. Court will not act merely on what the defendants say and accepted to be correct. If ultimately the Court decided that the suit is not maintainable, then the petitioners may have right to choose proper legal forum available for redressal of grievance, but not otherwise. It is the choice and at their sweet- will the petitioners have withdrawn the suit. It is not the law or any provision in the Civil Procedure Code that the plaintiffs have right to withdraw the suit and to file writ petition in the High Court for same cause of action and relief. A right is available for withdrawal of the suit to the plaintiff but for same relief, the Special Civil Application is not maintainable. A right is available for withdrawal of the suit to the plaintiff but for same relief, the Special Civil Application is not maintainable. It is true that the provisions of C. P. C. , may not be applicable to the proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution as the applicability of provisions of C. P. C. are barred by sec. 141 C. P. C. , to these proceedings, but the principles analogous to C. P. C. , can be made applicable to these proceedings also. In this respect reference may have to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Upadhyay and Comp. v. State of U. P. , reported in 1999 (1) SCC 81 as well as two decisions of this Court in the cases of Natwar Textiles v. Union of India, reported in 1990 (1) GLR 338 and in the cases of Athhavisi Modh Chaturvedi Gorato Panchors v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1996 (2) GCD 654 . In this case the liberty has also not been granted to the petitioners by the trial Court to file Special civil Application before this Court. Whether the withdrawal of the suit by the plaintiffs in this case was justified or not is the next question needs to be considered. The petitioners withdrew the suit for two reasons. Firstly, in the suit the question of fundamental right has arisen. Secondly, the Union of India has to be joined as party defendant. These two grounds are not legally sufficient and justified for withdrawal of the suit. No doubt the plaintiffs have indefeasible right to withdraw the suit. But the difficulty comes only when the plaintiffs want to avail of another remedy and question may arise as to whether in such cases other remedy is available or not, as in the present case under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Though I have my reservations whether it can be said to be question of fundamental rights of the petitioners or not, but even if-it is said that this is a case of violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners, that can also be gone into and decided by the civil Court. It is not law that for grievance of violation of fundamental rights of litigant the only remedy is to come up before the High Court and the civil Court has no jurisdiction. It is not law that for grievance of violation of fundamental rights of litigant the only remedy is to come up before the High Court and the civil Court has no jurisdiction. Similarly, the policy decision taken by the Kandla Port Trust was also subject to judicial review by the civil Court. It is to be noted that in the matter of policy decisions, power of judicial review thereof of the Courts is very limited. Even if it is taken that to examine the validity of the revised policy of allotment of plots the Union of India is a necessary or proper party to the proceedings in the civil Court for which the suit was not necessarily to be withdrawn. At the most the petitioners can file application before the civil Court for impleading the Union of India as a party defendant. The application for withdrawal of the suit is not legally tenable and justifiable to the extent where to justify the filing of this petition before this Court for the same relief for which the suit has been filed by the petitioners. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners to justify the withdrawal of the suit to file this petition is contrary to contents of the purshis. Liberty to file fresh suit has also not been granted by the trial Court in this case. Not only this the plaintiffs have not prayed for liberty to file fresh suit. Once the plaintiffs have withdrawn the suit for the reason that they want to file this petition before this Court, this petition is not maintainable. Once the suit is withdrawn on the same cause of action this petition is not maintainable. The matter would have been different if the suit itself is not maintainable, but that is not the case of the petitioners. Even otherwise also, I do not find any case in favour of petitioners on merits. The petitioners are challenging the revised policy of allotment of plots made by the kandla Port Trust, but very conveniently, that revised policy has not been produced on the record of this Special Civil Application. Repeatedly this Court has asked the learned Counsel for the petitioners how in the absence of that policy it is possible for this Court to examine the validity of the policy and consequently to quash and set aside the same. Repeatedly this Court has asked the learned Counsel for the petitioners how in the absence of that policy it is possible for this Court to examine the validity of the policy and consequently to quash and set aside the same. Though the specific prayer is not made in the Special Civil Application that the revised policy of allotment of plots is illegal. But relief is claimed for inclusion of the petitioners names in the list of allotees and their cases are to be considered for allotment of plots. But, in substance, challenge is made to the revised policy of the allotments of the plots. Unless that policy is quashed and set aside the petitioners claim does not stand to any merit. The revised policy is not produced on the record of this Special Civil Application and same cannot be quashed and set aside by the Court in these proceedings and no relief of the nature as prayed for can be granted by this Court to them. Reference in this respect may have to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderingh v. Central government reported in 1986 (4) SCC 667 . When the Court has asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to show what is eligibility criteria for allotment of plots to the employees of Kandla Port Trust in the revised policy for allotment of plots, he failed to give the same and further come out saying that it is difficult to state as to how the application are eligible for allotment of plots. ( 8 ) IN this Special Civil Application the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the Circular, dated 10-12-1998 at annexure "d". It is mentioned in this Circular that actual allotment of each particular plot to the employees whose names have been approved by the Government for allotment of plots will be made on the basis of seniority list of the eligible employees by drawing lots. The allotment committee will conduct the proceedings of allotment by drawing of lots on 3-1-1999 at 10. 00 a. m. in staff club, Gopalpuri. The concerned employees who desire to attend the proceedings will be permitted to remain present at the time of drawing lots. The allotment committee will conduct the proceedings of allotment by drawing of lots on 3-1-1999 at 10. 00 a. m. in staff club, Gopalpuri. The concerned employees who desire to attend the proceedings will be permitted to remain present at the time of drawing lots. So the list of eligible candidates who are to be considered for allotment of plots by drawing lots is published and in the absence of those persons who are necessary parties no relief can be granted and more so where copy of revised policy has also not been produced. Even if it is taken that all those applicants may not be made party, but some of them have to be impleaded atleast in the representative capacity but that has also not been done. In the result, this Special Civil Application fails and same is dismissed. .