# C/M Sri Mahanth Ramashray Das Snakottar Mahavidyalaya & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 498
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-12
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 25840 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-sri-mahanth-ramashray-das-snakottar-mahavidyalaya-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46587
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ -
Maintainability - Alternative remedy - Order
passed by the Vice-chancellor to extend the
term of committee of management - Statutory
remedy of reference before the Chancellor was
available u/s 68 of the U.P. St. Universities Act
- Maintainability of writ challenged - Held, writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
should not be entertained when the statutory
remedy is available under the Act, unless
exceptional circumstances are made out - High
Court issued direction to avail alternative
remedy. (Para 33)
Writ petition disposed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
within the aforesaid time, the District Basic
Education Officer, Mirzapur shall consider and
decide the same, strictly in accordance with law,
by means of a reasoned and speaking order
preferably within two weeks thereafter.

22. The present writ petition is allowed
subject to the observations made above.
----------
(2021)12ILR A498
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 25840 of 2021

C/M Sri Mahanth Ramashray Das Snakottar
Mahavidyalaya & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ram Vijay Singh, Ms. Pooja Agarwal, Sri
Shailendra Singh

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ -
Maintainability - Alternative remedy - Order
passed by the Vice-chancellor to extend the
term of committee of management - Statutory
remedy of reference before the Chancellor was
available u/s 68 of the U.P. St. Universities Act
- Maintainability of writ challenged - Held, writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
should not be entertained when the statutory
remedy is available under the Act, unless
exceptional circumstances are made out - High
Court issued direction to avail alternative
remedy. (Para 33)
Writ petition disposed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. K.S. Rashid & Son Vs Income Tax Investigation
Commission & ors.; AIR 1954 SC 207
2. Sangram Singh Vs Election Tribunal, Kotah & anr.;
AIR 1955 SC 425
3. U.O.I. Vs T.R. Varma; AIR 1957 SC 882
4. St. of U.P. Vs Mohammed Nooh; AIR 1958 SC 86
5. N.T. Veluswami Thevar Vs G. Raja Nainar & ors.;
AIR 1959 SC 422
6. St. of M.P. & anr. Vs Bhailal Bhai etc. etc.; AIR
1964 SC 1006
7. Municipal Council, Khurai & anr. Vs Kamal Kumar &
anr.; AIR 1965 SC 1321
8. Siliguri Municipality & ors. Vs Amalendu Das & ors.;
AIR 1984 SC 653
9. S.T. Muthusami Vs K. Natarajan & ors.; AIR 1988
SC 616
10. Kerala St. Electricity Board & anr. Vs Kurien E.
Kalathil & ors.; (2000) 6 SCC 293
11. A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs S. Chellappan & ors.;
(2000) 7 SCC 695
12. Rajasthan St. Road Transport Corporation & anr.
Vs Krishna Kant & Ors.; (1995) 5 SCC 75
13. L.L. Sudhakar Reddy & Ors. Vs St. of A.P. & ors.;
(2001) 6 SCC 634
14. Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri
Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha & anr. Vs
St. of Mah. & Ors.; (2001) 8 SCC 509
15. G K N Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs Income Tax
Officer & Ors.; (2003) 1 SCC 72
16. Pratap Singh & anr. Vs St. of Har.; (2002) 7 SCC
484
17. Harbanslal Sahnia & anr. Vs Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. & ors.; (2003) 2 SCC 107
18. Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade
Marks, Mumbai & ors.; (1998) 8 SCC 1
19. G. Veerappa Pillai Vs Raman & Raman Ltd. & ors.;
AIR 1952 SC 192
20. Assistant Collector of Central Exicse, Chandan
Nagar, West Bengal Vs Dunlop India Ltd. & ors.; AIR
1985 SC 330
11 All. C/M Sri Mahanth Ramashray Das Snakottar Mahavidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
499
21. Ramendra Kishore Biswas Vs St. of Tripura & ors.;
(1999) 1 SCC 472
22. Shivgonda Anna Patil & ors. Vs St. of Mah. & ors.;
(1999) 3 SCC 5
23. C.A. Ibraham Vs Income-tax Officer, Kottayam &
anr.; AIR 1961 SC 609
24. H.B. Gandhi, Excise & Taxation Officer-cumAssessing Authority, Karnal & ors. Vs M/s Gopinath &
Sons & ors.; 1992 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 312
25. M/s. K.S. Venkataraman & Co.(P) Ltd. Vs St. of
Madras; AIR 1966 SC 1089
26. Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. Vs The GovernorGeneral in Council; AIR 1947 PC 78
27. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & anr. Vs St. of
Orissa & anr.; AIR 1983 SC 603
28. St. of U.P. Vs Mohammad Noor; AIR 1958 SC 86
29. Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. Vs St. of Bihar & ors.;
AIR 1999 SC 74
30. Sheela Devi Vs Jaspal Singh; (1999) 1 SCC 209
31. P.N.B. Vs O. C. Krishnan & ors.; AIR 2001 SCW
2993
32. St. of H.P. Vs Raja Mahendra Pal & ors.; AIR 1999
SC 1786
33. Govt. of A.P. & ors. Vs J. Sridevi & ors.; AIR 2002
SC 1801
34. St. of Bihar & ors Vs Jain Plastics & Chemicals
Ltd.; AIR 2002 SC 206
35. Champalal Binani Vs The Commissioner of
Income-tax, W.B. & ors.; AIR 1970 SC 645
36. U.P. St. Bridge Corporation Ltd. & ors. Vs U.P.
Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karmchari Sangh; (2004) 4 SCC
268
37. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. Vs N.R.
Vairamani & Anr.; (2004) 8 SCC 579
38. Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs St. of
Bihar & ors.; (2004) 5 SCC 1
39. U.P. St. Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs R.S. Pandey & anr.;
(2005) 8 SCC 264
40 R Vs London Borough of Hillington, Council; (1974)
2 All ER 643
41. Seth Chand Ratan Vs Pandit Durga Prasad & ors;
2003 AIR SCW 3078.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent-University,
Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for
respondent no.4 and Mr. Shailendra Singh,
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioners for the following relief:

"I. a writ, order or direction, in the
nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned
order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Registrar,
Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University,
Jaunpur (Annexure No. 3 to this Writ Petition).

II. a writ, order or direction, in the
nature of certiorari, calling for the records and
quash the impugned order dated 26.08.2021
passed by the Vice-Chancellor, Veer Bahadur
Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (if any).

III. a writ, order or direction, in the
nature of mandamus, restraining the respondent
no.4 from working as Manager of Sri Mahanth
Ramashray Das Sankottar Mahavidyalaya,
Bhudkuda, Ghazipur.

IV. any other suitable, writ, order or
direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper under the facts and circumstances of
the present case.

.................. "

3. On 7th October, 2021, the Court passed
following order:

"The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are
represented by Sri Ran Vijay Singh, Advocate.
He may take instructions as to whether when
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there was no resolution for the extension of the
term how the term had been extended.

Place this petition as fresh on
8.11.2021."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that without any resolution having been
passed by the members of the committee of
management as provided under para 11.1 of the
registered bye-laws of the society, the ViceChancellor I.e. respondent no.3, only on a letter
of
the
manager
of
the
Committee
of
Management, has extended the term of the
committee of management for a further period of
one year, while passing the impugned order
dated 28th August, 2021, which is per se illegal.
He, therefore, submits that order impugned is
liable to be quashed.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the
respondent-University submits that pursuant to the
order of the Court dated 7th October, 2021, he has
received instruction and as per the said instruction,
the impugned order has been passed on the
resolution of the Committee of Management,
which has been passed by the eight members (out
of 11 members) of the committee of management
for extending the term of the committee of
management for a further period of one year. He
also placed a photo copy of the said resolution
before the Court today, which is taken on record.
Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the
respondents submits that against the order
impugned, the petitioner has an efficacious
statutory alternative remedy by way of reference
before the Chancellor of the respondent-University
under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities
Act. He, therefore, submits that this petition be
dismissed on the ground of the aforesaid statutory
alternative remedy.

6. I have considered the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the records of the present writ
petition.

7. The issue of exhausting statutory
remedy has been considered time and again by
the Apex Court.

8. A Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court, in K.S. Rashid & Son Vs. Income Tax
Investigation Commission & Ors., reported in
AIR 1954 SC 207, held that Article 226 of the
Constitution confers on all the High Courts a
very wide power in the matter of issuing writs.
The said power is limited. However, the remedy
of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy and
the High Court has always the discretion to
refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the
aggrieved party can have an adequate or
suitable relief elsewhere. Similar view has been
reiterated by the Apex Court in Sangram Singh
Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah & anr., reported
in AIR 1955 SC 425, holding that the power of
issuing writs are purely discretionary and no
limit can be placed upon that discretion.
However, the power can be exercised alone with
recognised line and not arbitrarily and the Court
must keep in mind that the power shall not be
exercised unless substantial injustice has ensued
or is likely to ensue and in other cases the parties
must be relegated to the courts of appeal or
revision to set right mere errors of law which do
not occasion injustice in a broad and general
sense.

9. Again a Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court, in Union of India Vs. T.R. Varma,
reported in AIR 1957 SC 882, held that it is well
settled that when an alternative and equally
efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he
should be required to pursue that remedy and not
invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court
to issue a prerogative writ. The Apex Court held
that the existence of another remedy does not
affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue a
writ; but the existence of an adequate legal
remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration
in the matter of granting writs and where such
remedy exist, it will be a sound exercise of
11 All. C/M Sri Mahanth Ramashray Das Snakottar Mahavidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
501
discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless
there are good grounds therefor.

10. Yet another Constitution Bench of
the Apex Court, in State of U.P. Vs.
Mohammed Nooh, reported in AIR 1958 SC
86, considered the scope of exercise of writ
jurisdiction when remedy of appeal was there
and held that writ would lie provided there is
no other equally efficacious remedy. The
Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may
exercise the power if it comes to the
conclusion that there has been a breach of
fundamental principles of justice. Therefore,
in a proper case, powers of writ can be
exercised, but should not be exercised
generally where other adequate legal remedy
is available though it may not be, per se, a bar
to issue a writ of prerogative. The Apex Court
held that the remedy, being discretionary,
cannot be asked as a matter of right, even if
the order is a nullity, on the ground that it was
passed by disregarding the rules of natural
justice. The Court held as under:-

"..... save in exceptional cases, the courts
will not interfere under Article 226 until all
normal remedies available to a petitioner have
been exhausted. The normal remedies in a
case of this kind are appeal or revision. It is
true that on a matter of jurisdiction or on a
question that goes to the root of the case, the
High Courts can entertain a petition at an
early stage but they are not bound to do so
and a petition would not be thrown out
because the petitioner had done that which the
Courts usually ask him to do, namely, to
exhaust his normal remedies before invoking
an
extraordinary
jurisdiction.......
The
petitioner would have been expected to persue
the remedies of appeal or revision and could
not have come to the High Court in the
ordinary way until he had exhausted them."

11. In N.T. Veluswami Thevar Vs. G.
Raja Nainar & ors., reported in AIR 1959 SC
422, the Apex Court held that the jurisdiction
of the High Court to issue writs against the
orders of the Tribunal is undoubted; but then,
it is well settled that where there is another
remedy provided, the Court must properly
exercise its discretion in declining to interfere
under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. Another Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court, in State of Madhya Pradesh &
anr. Vs. Bhailal Bhai etc. etc., reported in AIR
1964 SC 1006, held that the remedy provided in
a writ jurisdiction is not intended to supersede
completely the modes of obtaining relief by an
action in a civil court or to deny defence
legitimately open in such actions. The power to
give relief under Article 226 of the Constitution
is a discretionary power. Similar view has been
reiterated in Municipal Council, Khurai &
anr. Vs. Kamal Kumar & anr., reported in
AIR 1965 SC 1321.

13. In Siliguri Municipality & ors. Vs.
Amalendu Das & ors., reported in AIR 1984 SC
653, the Apex Court held that the High court
must exercise its power under Article 226 with
circumspection and while considering the matter
of recovery of tax etc., it should not interfere
save under very exceptional circumstances.

14. In S.T. Muthusami Vs. K. Natarajan
& ors., reported in AIR 1988 SC 616, the Apex
Court held that the High Court cannot be
justified to exercise the power in writ
jurisdiction if an effective alternative remedy is
available to the party.

15. In Kerala State Electricity Board &
Anr. Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil & ors., reported in
(2000) 6 SCC 293, while dealing with a similar
issue, the Apx Court held that the writ petition
should not be entertained unless the party
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exhausted the alternative/statutory efficacious
remedy.

16. In A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S.
Chellappan & ors., reported in (2000) 7 SCC
695, the Apex Court deprecated the practice of
exercising the writ jurisdiction when efficacious
alternative remedy is available. The Court
observed as under:-

"Though no hurdle can be put against the
exercise of Constitutional powers of the High
Court, it is a well recognised principle which
gives judicial recognition that the High Court
should direct the party to avail himself of such
remedy, one or other, before he resorts to a
Constitutional remedy."

17. Similar view has been reiterated in
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
& Anr. Vs. Krishna Kant & Ors., reported in
(1995) 5 SCC 75; L.L. Sudhakar Reddy &
Ors. Vs. State of A.P. & Ors., reported in
(2001) 6 SCC 634; Shri Sant Sadguru
Janardan
Swami
(Moingiri
Maharaj)
Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha & Anr.
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in
(2001) 8 SCC 509; G K N Driveshafts (India)
Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors., reproted
in (2003) 1 SCC 72; and Pratap Singh & Anr.
Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2002) 7 SCC
484.

18. In Harbanslal Sahnia & anr. Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & ors., reported
in (2003) 2 SCC 107, the Apex Court held that
the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by
availability of alternative remedy is a rule of
discretion and not one of compulsion and the
Court must consider the pros and cons of the
case and then may interfere if it comes to the
conclusion that the writ seeks enforcement of
any of the fundamental rights; where there is
failure of principle of natural justice or where
the orders or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
While deciding the said case, the Apex Court
placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in
Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade
Marks, Mumbai & ors., reported in (1998) 8
SCC 1.

19. A Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court, in G. Veerappa Pillai Vs. Raman &
Raman Ltd. & ors., reported in AIR 1952 SC
192, held that as the Motor Vehicles Act is a self
contained
code
and
itself
provides
for
appealable/ revisable forum, the writ jurisdiction
should not be invoked generally in matters
relating to its provision.

20. Similar view has been reiterated in
Assistant
Collector
of
Central
Exicse,
Chandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs. Dunlop
India Ltd. & ors., reported in AIR 1985 SC
330; Ramendra Kishore Biswas Vs. State of
Tripura & ors., reported in (1999) 1 SCC 472;
and Shivgonda Anna Patil & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & ors., (1999) 3 SCC 5.

21. In C.A. Ibraham Vs. Income-tax
Officer, Kottayam & Anr., reported in AIR
1961 SC 609 and H.B. Gandhi, Excise &
Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority,
Karnal & ors. Vs. M/s Gopinath & Sons &
ors., reported in 1992 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 312, the
Apex court held that where hierarchy of appeals
is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the
statutory remedies before resorting to writ
jurisdiction.

22. The Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court, in M/s. K.S. Venkataraman & Co.(P)
Ltd. Vs. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1966
SC
1089,
considered the
Privy
Council
judgment in Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. Vs.
The Governor-General in Council, reported in
AIR 1947 PC 78 and held that the writ court can
entertain the petition provided the order is
alleged to be without jurisdiction or has been
11 All. C/M Sri Mahanth Ramashray Das Snakottar Mahavidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
503
passed in flagrant violation of the principles of
natural justice, or the provisions of the Act/
Rules is under challenge.

23. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. &
anr. Vs. State of Orissa & Anr., reported in AIR
1983 SC 603, the Apex Court refused to extend the
ratio of its earlier judgment in State of U.P. Vs.
Mohammad Noor, reported in AIR 1958 SC 86,
wherein the Court had held that prerogative writ
can be issued to correct the error of the Court or
Tribunal below even if an appeal is provided under
the statute under certain circumstances, i.e. the
order is without jurisdiction, or principles of
natural justice have not been followed, and held
that in case of assessment under the Taxing
Statute, the principle laid down by the Privy
Council in Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. (supra)
would be applicable for the reason that "the use of
the machinery provided by the Act, not the result of
that use, is the test."

24. In Whirlpool Corporation (Supra) and
Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar &
ors., reported in AIR 1999 SC 74 the Apex Court
came to the conclusion that writ should not
generally be entertained if statute provide for
remedy of appeal and even if it has been admitted,
parties should be relegated to the appellate forum.

25. In Sheela Devi Vs. Jaspal Singh,
reported in (1999) 1 SCC 209, the Apex Court has
held that if the statute itself provides for a remedy
of revision, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

26. In Punjab National Bank Vs. O. C.
Krishnan and others, reported in AIR 2001 SCW
2993, the Apex Court, while considering the issue
of alternative remedy observed as under:-

"The Act has been enacted with a view to
provide a special procedure for recovery of
debts due to the banks and the financial
institutions. There is hierarchy of appeal
provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal
under S.20 and this fast track procedure cannot
be allowed to be derailed either by taking
recourse to proceedings under Arts. 226 and
227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit,
which is expressly barred. Even though a
provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the
jurisdiction of the Court under Arts. 226 and
227 of the Constitution, nevertheless when there
is an alternative remedy available judicial
prudence demands that the Court refrains from
exercising its jurisdiction under the said
constitutional provisions. This was a case where
the High Court should not have entertained the
petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution and
should have directed the respondent to take
recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by
the Act."

27. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.
Raja Mahendra Pal & ors., reported in AIR
1999 SC 1786 while dealing with a similar issue
the Apex Court has held as under:-

"It is true that the powers conferred upon
the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution are discretionary in nature and can
be invoked for the enforcement of any
fundamental right or legal right-------. The
constitutional Court should insist upon the party
(to avail of the efficacious alternative remedy)
instead of invoking the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of the Court. This does not however
debar the court from granting the appropriate
relief to a citizen in peculiar and special facts
notwithstanding the existence of alternative
efficacious remedy. The existence of special
circumstances are required to be noticed before
issuance of the direction by the High Court
while invoking the jurisdiction under the said
Article."

28. In Govt. of A.P. & ors. Vs. J. Sridevi
& ors., reported in AIR 2002 SC 1801, the Apex
Court held that where a authority is competent to
determine the issue, "the High Court in a writ
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction should have directed the authority
only to take an appropriate decision". When the
statutory authority is vested with the power to
determine the question as to the applicability of
the provisions of the Act, it is ordinarily
desirable to leave the question to be decided by
such authority. The aggrieved party can file
appeal
against
the
decision
within
the
framework provided under the statute and the
ultimate decision also could be challenged under
judicial review, if permitted in law

29. In the State of Bihar & ors Vs. Jain
Plastics & Chemicals Ltd., reported in AIR
2002 SC 206, the Apex Court held that existence
of alternative remedy does not affect the
jurisdiction of the writ court but it could be a
good ground for not entertaining the petition.

30. In Champalal Binani Vs. The
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal &
ors., reported in AIR 1970 SC 645, the Court
observed as under:-

"Before parting with the case we deem it
necessary once more to emphasize that the
Income-tax Act provides a complete and selfcontained machinery for obtaining relief against
improper action taken by the departmental
authorities, and normally the party feeling
himself aggrieved by such action cannot be
permitted to refuse to have recourse to that
machinery and to approach the High Court
directly against the action. The assessee had an
adequate remedy under the Income-tax Act
which he could have availed of. He however, did
not move the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
which was competent to decide all questions of
fact and law which the assessee could have
raised in the appeal including the grievance that
he had not adequate opportunity of making his
representation and invoked the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the High Court. In our judgment,
no adequate ground was made out for
entertaining the petition. A writ of certiorari is
discretionary; it is not used merely because it is
lawful to do so. Where the party feeling
aggrieved by an order of an Authority under the
Income-tax Act has an adequate alternative
remedy which he may resort to against the
improper action of the authority and he does not
avail himself of that remedy the High Court will
require a strong case to be made out for
entertaining a petition for a writ. Where the
aggrieved party has an alternative remedy, the
High Court would be slow to entertain a petition
challenging an order of a taxing authority which
is ex facie with jurisdiction. A petition for a writ
of certiorari may lie to the High Court, where
the order is on the face of it erroneous or raises
question of jurisdiction or of infringement of
fundamental rights of the petitioner. The present
case was one in which the jurisdiction of the
High Court could not be invoked."

31. Similar view has been reiterated in
U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Vs. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karmchari
Sangh, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 268; Bharat
Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. N.R.
Vairamani & Anr., reported in (2004) 8 SCC
579; Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. &
Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in
(2004) 5 SCC 1.

32. In U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs.
R.S. Pandey & Anr., reported in (2005) 8 SCC
264, the Apex Court re-considered almost all of
its earlier judgments on the issue.

33. In a catena of decisions it has been held
that writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution should not be entertained when
the statutory remedy is available under the Act,
unless exceptional circumstances are made out.
By deciding the said case, the Apex Court
placed reliance upon the judgment in R Vs.
London Borough of Hillington, Council,
reported in (1974) 2 All ER 643, wherein it had
been
held
as
under.
11 All. C/M Janta Inter College Jaitpur Kalan, Agra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
505

"It has always been a principle that
certiorari will go only where there is no other
equally effective and convenient remedy.

.....................

The statutory system of appeals is more
effective and more convenient than application
for certiorari and the principal reason why it
may prove itself more convenient and more
effective is that an appeal to (say) the secretary
of State can be disposed of at one hearing
whether the issue between them is a matter of
law or fact or policy or opinion or a
combination of some or all of these....whereas of
course an appeal for certiorari is limited to
cases where the issue is a matter of law and then
only it is a matter of law appearing on the face
of the order.

.........

An application for certiorari has however this
advantage that it is speedier and cheaper than the
other methods and in a proper case therefore it may
well be right to allow it to be used......I would,
however, define a proper case as being one where
the decision in question is liable to be upset as a
matter of law because on its face it is clearly made
without jurisdiction or in consequence of an error of
law."

34. Similar view has been reiterated in Seth
Chand Ratan Vs. Pandit Durga Prasad & Ors,
reported in 2003 AIR SCW 3078.

35. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by
the Apex Court and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, this writ petition is
disposed of by providing that the petitioner, may
make reference petition against the order impugned
before the Chancellor of the University, under
Section 68 of the U.P. State within three weeks from
today, along with a certified copy of this order. On
such reference petition being filed, the Chancellor of
the respondent-University is requested to consider
and decide the same, in accordance with law by
means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably
within one month thereafter after affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
----------
(2021)12ILR A505
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 32017 of 2021

C/M Janta Inter College Jaitpur Kalan, Agra &
Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Prabhakar Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India - Article 14 & 21 - UP
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Section 16A - Committee of management - Single
operation of bank account - Principle of natural
justice - Applicability - No opportunity of
hearing was given - Effect - Ex parte order
passed - Validity challenged - Held, there is
substance
in
the
submissions
that
the
impugned order directing single operation of
bank accounts of the petitioners' institution, is
passed in violation of principle of natural
justice
and
Articles
14
and
21
of
the
Constitution of India, as there is no whisper as
on which date, opportunity of hearing has been
afforded to the petitioners or to any officebearers of the Committee of Management of
the petitioners' institution before passing the
same, hence, the same is an ex-parte order -
High Court remitted back the matter to the
DIOS after setting aside the impugned order.
(Para 9, 12 and 13)
Appeal allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-