Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Ramji Kewat And Ors. on 2 May, 2001
21. I will be failing in my duty if I do not deal with contentions raised by Mr. Pramod Verma, learned counsel for the respondents who has urged with vehemence that this Court in the case of Ganga Naryan (supra) has held that where an alternative remedy exists the writ petition is not maintainable. Mr. Verma has referred to paragraph 4 learned counsel appearing for the bank had raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the remedy of statutory appeal being available to the petitioner under Section 20 of the Act. The learned counsel has also referred to the last portion of the paragraph 9 of the judgment to show that the learned single Judge has upheld the preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. The submission of Mr. Verma can not be accepted to be correct in as much as a decision has to be read in entirety keeping the context in view. It is well settled in law that a sentence from here and there should not be read to find the ratio decidendi of a case. Words should be read keeping in view the context to arrive at the real ratio of the decision in question. It is the duty of the Court, while applying the decision to a later case, to carefully ascertain the true principle laid down by the previous decision. It is to be noted that in paragraph 4 of the said judgment the learned single Judge has observed that the learned counsel for the Bank had submitted that the Act itself having provided for entire mechanism the petitioner cannot be allowed to invoke the remedy provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 9, the learned Judge has held as under :