Chandra Prakesh vs Adilabad Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 4281 Tel

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                           AND
                 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                         WRIT APPEAL No.59 of 2019


JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


        The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated

09.11.2018

        passed         by      the      learned         Single   Judge   in

W.P.No.16191 of 2008.

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has

argued before this Court that the writ petition was filed in the

year 2008 and it was admitted by this Court. This Court has

also checked the record of W.P.No.16191 of 2008 and it was

certainly admitted by the learned Single Judge at the relevant

point of time. However, the learned Single Judge, by an order

dated 09.11.2018, has dismissed the writ petition giving

liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to avail the alternative

remedy.

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner relied

on Krishan Lal v. Food Corporation of India and others1 in

support of his contention that after lapse of more than ten

years, remanding the matter to the appellate authority is

contrary to the law laid down in the said decision.

Paragraph 11 of the judgment delivered in the case of

Krishan Lal (supra) is reproduced as under:-

"11. It is true that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties. It is equally true that, keeping in view the nature of the controversy, any claim for

1 2012 AIR SCW 1621

refund of the amount deposited by the appellant could be and ought to have been raised before the Arbitrator under the said arbitration. The fact, however, remains that the High Court had entertained the writ petition as early as in the year 2002 and the present appeals have been pending in this Court for the past ten years or so. Relegating the parties to arbitration will not be feasible at this stage especially when the proceedings before the Arbitrator may also drag on for another decade. Availability of an alternative remedy for adjudication of the disputes is, therefore, not a ground that can be pressed into service at this belated stage and is accordingly rejected."

In the light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of

the opinion that after about ten years, the writ petition

should not have been dismissed on the ground of availability

of alternative remedy and therefore, the order passed by the

learned Single Judge is set aside. The matter is remanded

back to the learned Single Judge to decide it on merits

keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case.

Registry is directed to list the writ petition before the

learned Single Judge having roster on 28.12.2021, on which

date the parties shall appear before the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. The

miscellaneous applications pending in this writ appeal, if any,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 13.12.2021 vs