JUDGMENT Heard Sri K. N. Joshi and Sri N. C. Gupta Standing counsel. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Joint Director of Education, Kumaon Division, Nainital dated 26.5.2003 by which order has been passed under section 6 (3) of U.P. High Schools and Intermediate colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the 'Act') superseding the management and appointing authorized controller. 3. A perusal of the impugned order dated 26.5.03 shows that an inquiry was conducted with regard to the affairs of the institution. The order dated 29.3.03 shows that a show cause notice was issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Bageshwar to the Manager regarding the increment of pay of Sri Mohan Chandra, Lecturer in Sociology. In continuation of the aforesaid show cause notice dated 29.3.03 another letter was sent on 30.4.2003 stating therein that the salaries have not been paid in accordance with the recommendation of fifth pay commission's report and as such financial irregularities were found in the institution. 4. In reply of aforesaid letters the Manager has stated that salary bills have already been submitted. The petitioner has stated that without considering the reply letters dated 2.5.03 and 5.5.03 order has been passed on 26.5.03. 5. The petitioner has further stated that in reply to show cause notice of sub section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, he has submitted the reply in accordance with sub section (3) of Section 6 and the authorities concerned have not considered the reply letters and as such the impugned order superseding the management is wholly without jurisdiction. It was also argued that the order is silent about the facts stated in the reply letters regarding salary bills which were already pending for consideration. 6. Further it was pointed out that Joint Director of Education has no jurisdiction as Authorised Controller can only be appointed by the Deputy Director, Education. In order to consider the submission of both the parties it is necessary to incorporate section 6 of the Act which provides basis of the satisfaction for recommending to the Regional Deputy Director of Education for taking action against the institution. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the petitioner as well as by the learned Standing Counsel. In order to consider the submission of both the parties it is necessary to incorporate section 6 of the Act which provides basis of the satisfaction for recommending to the Regional Deputy Director of Education for taking action against the institution. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the petitioner as well as by the learned Standing Counsel. Section 6 reads as follows: (1) Where the Inspector on the basis of an inspection of an institution or its records or otherwise is satisfied that its management has committed default in complying with any direction given under section 4 or with any provision of section 3 or section 5 he may recommend to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, that action be taken against the institution under sub section (2). (2) On receipt of a recommendation under sub section (1), the Regional Deputy Director of Education, may call upon the management to comply with the said directions of provisions or to show cause within a week why the management should not be suspended. Where the management fails to comply as aforesaid or to show cause, or the Regional Deputy Director of Education considers the cause shown to be insufficient, he may by order supersede the management for such period not exceeding one year as may be specified in the order and authorise any person (hereinafter referred to as the Authorised Controller) to take over the management of the institution for the said period. 8. Sub section (2) of the Act provides for a show cause notice directing the management to comply with said directions. Sub section (3) provides a protection to the management to safeguard himself from being superseded. Without entering into the merits of the controversy with regard to the satisfaction of the authority concerned in passing the impugned order appointing authorized controller under sub section (3) of Section 6 of the Act, it may be pointed out that the impugned order only discloses various letters which have been sent from time to time to the Management, the order is silent regarding the replies filed by the petitioner's management. 9. Since the issue involved relates to the factual aspects, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a remedy available to the petitioner in view of the alternative remedy already provided under the Act. 9. Since the issue involved relates to the factual aspects, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a remedy available to the petitioner in view of the alternative remedy already provided under the Act. Section 7 of the Act provides as under: Appeal- An appeal against the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, superseding the management under sub section (3) of section 6 may be preferred to the Director within one month from the date on which the order is communicated to the management and the Director may after such further inquiry, if any as he considers necessary either set it aside or confirm or modify it, and pending the disposal of appeal may stay the operation of the order on such terms, if any, as he thinks fit. 10. As will appear from the aforesaid Section 7 of the Act, the appellate authority has power either to set aside or confirm or to modify the order passed by the Regional Deputy Director. Even pending disposal of the appeal operation of the impugned order may be stayed by the appellant authority. The powers conferred with the director are very wide and he will consider the show cause notice sent to the petitioner as well as its replies and shall satisfy himself as to whether the impugned order has been passed in conformity with sub section (2) or sub section (3) of section 6 of the Act. 11. It is settled law that if alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the writ petition under Article 226 cannot be availed by the petitioner. In the case Dilbag Singh Vs. Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies UP and others, 2003 (51) ALR 432 it has been held by Allahabad High Court as under: "However, since writ is a discretionary remedy the court should not ordinarily exercise its discretion when an alternative remedy exists……It is only in rare and exceptional cases that this Court should interefere when there is an alternative remedy exists. " 12. The Apex Court in the case Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam and others Vs. Jayasatya Marine Export Ltd. and others (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 765 has held that where the alternative remedy is available jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be availed. Observations of the Apex Court as under:. " 12. The Apex Court in the case Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam and others Vs. Jayasatya Marine Export Ltd. and others (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 765 has held that where the alternative remedy is available jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be availed. Observations of the Apex Court as under:. We are of the view that the High Court should not have entertained these writ petitions and should have relegated the writ petitioners to the alternate remedy. "That an alternative remedy by way of an appeal is available is clear from Section 5-A, which we have quoted, and, indeed, the learned Additional Solicitor-General appearing for the Union of India expressly affirmed this. We must, therefore, direct that the writ petitioners may file appeals under the provisions of the Customs Act within eight weeks from today. If that is done and the requisite predeposits are made, the respondents to the writ petitions shall not raise any objections, including those of limitation, to the maintainability of the appeals. It is expected, in the circumstances that the appeals will then be disposed of on merits. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy by filing an appeal within two weeks of the receipt of certified copy of this order and the same shall be disposed on merits within a period of one month thereafter. 14. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is dismissed.