AIR 1957 SUPREME COURT 882 ::1958 ALL. L. J. 126 ::60 Pun LR 126 ::1956 MadLJ(Cri) 123 ::1958 MadLJ(Cri) 123 ::1957 (13) FJR 237 ::1958 SCJ 142 ::1958 SCR 499 ::ILR 1958 Punj 274

Supreme Court Of India

18th September 1957

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. R. Das, T. L. Venkatarama Ayyar, B. P. Sinha, J. L. Kapur, Ajit Kumar Sarkar , JJJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.226— Other remedy open. Under the law a person whose services have been wrongfully terminated, is entitled to institute an action to vindicate his rights, and in such an action, the Court will be competent to award all the reliefs to which he may be entitled, including some which would not be admissible in a writ petition. It is well-settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy any not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue 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, exists, it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Art. 226 unless there are good grounds therefor:(Para 6) Anno: AIR Com. Const. of India, Art. 226, N. 19. (B) Constitution of India , Art.226— Disputed questions. Where there is a question on which there is a serious dispute, which cannot be satisfactorily decided without taking evidence, it is not the practice of ....