HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 7 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 64 of 2008 Appellant :- Dr. Smt. Abha Sharma, Associate Professor, Department Of English, Agra College, Agra Respondent :- State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Higher Education. Government of U.P., Lucknow and 5 others Counsel for Appellant :- Radhakant Ojha (Senior Advocate) assisted by Ram Gopal Tripathi, advocate Counsel for Respondent No.1 :- Ms. Akansha Sharma, Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3:- M.N. Singh Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6:-Pankaj Misra 1. The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission AIR 1954 SC 207, Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal AIR 1955 SC 425, Union of India v. T.R. Varma AIR 1957 SC 882, State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86 and K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras AIR 1966 SC 1089 have held that though Article 226 confers very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ is absolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice or the procedure required for decision has not been adopted.(See N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar AIR 1959 SC 422, Municipal Council, Khurai v. Kamal Kumar AIR 1965 SC 1321, Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das (1984) 2 SCC 436, S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan (1988) 1 SCC 572, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant (1995) 5 SCC 75, Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil (2000) 6 SCC 293, A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan (2000) 7 SCC 695, L.L. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of A.P. (2001) 6 SCC 634, Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 8 SCC 509, Pratap Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 7 SCC 484 and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 1 SCC 72)." 8. The aforementioned view that the existence of an alternative remedy does not create an absolute bar on the exercise of writ jurisdiction by a High Court has been reiterated in a recent decision in the case of Maharashtra Chess Association Vs. Union of India and Others2, in the following words :- "22The existence of an alternate remedy, whether adequate or not, does not alter the fundamentally discretionary nature of the High Court's writ jurisdiction and therefore does not create an absolute legal bar on the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by a High Court. The decision whether or not to entertain an action under its writ jurisdiction remains a decision to be taken by the High Court on an examination of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 23. This understanding has been laid down in several decisions of this Court.