Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)Ram And Shyam Company vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 May, 1985
In the case of RAM AND SHYAM COMPANY V. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS, AIR 1985 SC 1147, the Supreme Court has inter alia observed that the Courts have imposed a restrain in its own wisdom of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the authority invoking the jurisdiction as an effective adequate alternative remedy. More often it has been expressly stated that rule which requires exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than rule of law. Had any read it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. The Supreme Court has further stated as under:
Mahendrakumar Veerabhai Makwana vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 1 September, 1990
9. The similar view has been taken earlier point of time by this Court in case of MAHENDRAKUMAR VEERABHAI MAKVANA V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER, 1991 (1) GLH 1 relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in reported decision of Supreme Court in H.M.'s case reported in AIR 1971 SC page 33.
Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963
In case of MEENGLAS TEA STATE V. THE WORKMEN, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1719, wherein it is held as under:
Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh ... vs Vinay Narayan Vajpayee on 16 January, 1980
In the case of U.P. WAREHOUSING CORPN. V. VIJAY NARAYAN reported in AIR 1980 SC 840, also the Court has held as under :
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Chandulal G. Rasadiya on 14 October, 1992
15. Now the question is if the dismissal order is set aside only on the ground that departmental inquiry is vitiated, held to be contrary to the principles of natural justice. Then what would be the subsequent stage. According to my opinion the suggestion which has been given by Mr. Gandhi relying upon the earlier decision in Special Civil Application No. 9753 of 1999 dated 23.9.2003 is reasonable and proper suggestion that dismissal order required to be set aside and at the time when dismissal order was passed, petitioner was under suspension then instead of reinstatement petitioner must remain under suspension and within some reasonable time respondent Nagarpalika may be directed to hold denovo proper inquiry in accordance with principle of natural justice and the principle decided by the Apex Court and this Court as referred above within some reasonable time which will meet the ends of justice between the parties.
K.S. Joy vs Indian Institute Of Management And Ors. on 20 May, 1993
7. I have considered the submissions made by both the learned advocates. The first contention which learned advocate Mr. Paresh Upadhyay has raised is that an alternative effective remedy is available to the petitioner to appeal against the dismissal order to the Director of Municipality. It is settled principle of law that once the matter is admitted by this Court, the question of alternative remedy cannot be entertained by this Court. The view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.S. JOY V. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, 1994 (1) GLR 57 is reproduced as under:
Section 52 in The Gujarat University Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
1