AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 261 wordsTarlok Singh Chauhan, J
Heard. The petitioner not only has an efficacious, but a proper remedy available under H.P. Panchayati Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder to assail order of suspension impugned in this petition.
2 In Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar vs. Dunlop India Limited and ors., AIR 1985 SC 330, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"Article 226 is not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to article 226 of the Constitution. But then the court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy by statute."
3 The observations, quoted above, apply to the facts of the present case fully. Neither could anything be shown to us nor we find any justification for permitting the petitioner to bypass the alternative remedy provided for by the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the preliminary ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy.
4 In view of above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with liberty to avail alternative remedy. Pending applications also stand disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.