Abdul Rashid Sheikh vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1660 j&K

                                                                          Sr. No. 1



        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

CJ Court

Case: RP No. 132 of 2021

Abdul Rashid Sheikh                                      .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)

                                Through :- Ms. Shabeena Naveed, Advocate.
                                           (through virtual mode from Srinagar)
                          v/s

Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and                            .....Respondent(s)
others
                                Through :-


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

                                    ORDER

1. Heard Ms. Shabeena Naveed, learned counsel for the appellant, who

has applied for the review of the judgment and order dated 05.10.2021.

2. The writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant was dismissed on

the ground of availability of statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section

30 of the Employees' Compensation Act.

3. In the appeal, the court held that the order impugned in the writ

petition was not ex facie without jurisdiction. Even if the jurisdiction of the

writ court is not barred absolutely on the ground of availability of alternate

remedy, yet it is a discretionary jurisdiction and the court can always refuse to

exercise it.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on certain decisions of the

Supreme Court submits that availability of alternate remedy is not an absolute

bar in entertaining a writ petition and where the order is without jurisdiction,

the writ petition should not be thrown out on the above ground.

5. There is no quarrel on the proposition of law as stated above. There

may not be any absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition where alternative

remedy exists but the entertainment of such a petition depends upon hosts of

other factors and it is not necessary for the writ court to entertain a petition

where the order is said to be without jurisdiction. Thus, where the court

considering all the factors declined to exercise its jurisdiction and relegates the

petitioner to some other forum, it would not be a case for review.

6. In the case at hand, the appellate court has observed that the

contention of the appellant that the order is without jurisdiction is not correct.

Therefore, it is not a case where power of review can be exercised. There is no

error apparent on the face of the record.

7. The review application, as such, lacks merit and is dismissed.

                            (RAJNESH OSWAL)                (PANKAJ MITHAL)
                                     JUDGE                  CHIEF JUSTICE



JAMMU
10.12.2021
Raj Kumar