Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 720 (UTT)

Ramji Lal v. Board of Revenue, U. P. , Lucknow

2006-12-18

J.C.S.RAWAT, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2006
Judgment [Per: Hon'ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. (Oral)] Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel (UP. Govt.) for the respondent. They are heard on admission. 2. Petitioner Ramji Lal filed this writ petition in the year 1999 before the High Court of Allahabad for the following reliefs: "1. a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 87-1999 issued by the Board of Revenue, U.P. Luc know (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition). 2. a writ, order or direction of suitable nature restraining the respondents from taking any action on the basis of the order impugned. 3. a writ / writs and / or to pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 4. award costs of the petition to the petitioner." 3. The petitioner, in substance, was seeking quashing of the order dated 08-07-1999 passed by Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Luc know (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition). 4. As the petitioner, at the time of filing of the writ petition, was posted at Rudraprayag, a district in the State of Uttaranchal now, the writ petition was transferred to the High Court of Uttaranchal on the re-organization of the State of Uttar Pradesh. 5. The writ petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 26-03-2001. 6. The writ petition stands restored to its original number vide order dated 11-122006. As the writ petition was not admitted for hearing before its dismissal for want of prosecution vide order dated 26-03-2001, the writ petition, today, is listed for hearing on admission. 7. Ms. Beena Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel (U.P. Govt.) for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alterative efficacious remedy of filing a petition before the Public Services Tribunal. 8. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate as to how the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition cannot be granted by the Public Services Tribunal. The learned counsel, however, submitted that relegating the petitioner now to avail the alternative remedy of filing a petition before the Public Services Tribunal will put him to inconvenience. 9. The learned counsel, however, submitted that relegating the petitioner now to avail the alternative remedy of filing a petition before the Public Services Tribunal will put him to inconvenience. 9. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and with a view to maintain consistency in the view of the High Court in such matters in line with the Division Bench decision in the case of Bhuvan Chandra Pandey & others Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others reported in 2006(2) U.D. 439, we decline to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing a petition before the Public Services Tribunal for the reliefs sought in the writ petition. 10. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to file a petition before the Public Services Tribunal and seek condo nation of the delay, if any, on the ground that the petitioner was prosecuting this writ petition under bona fide belief.