Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose when the respondent, an Executive Engineer with the U.P. Government, sought voluntary retirement but was compulsorily retired by the Governor. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging this order, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court for not exhausting the alternative remedy available before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. Subsequently, the respondent filed a second writ petition, which was allowed by a Single Judge, quashing the compulsory retirement order. The State challenged this decision, arguing that the Single Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the second petition after the Division Bench's dismissal. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal principles surrounding the exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the High Court. The Court held that a Single Judge should not entertain a second writ petition if the first was dismissed for non-exhaustion of an alternative remedy, as this would undermine judicial discipline and lead to chaos in the legal process. The appeal was allowed, and the Single Judge's order was set aside, although the respondent was not barred from seeking relief from the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. The judgment reinforced the importance of following established judicial practices in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Second Writ Petition - High Court's Discretion - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - A Single Judge cannot entertain a second writ petition if an earlier petition on the same matter was dismissed by a Division Bench for not exhausting an alternative remedy. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to established judicial practices to prevent abuse of the writ jurisdiction. Held that the Single Judge's order was unsustainable (Paras 879-890).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a second writ petition could be entertained by a Single Judge after a previous petition on the same matter was dismissed for non-exhaustion of an alternative remedy.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Single Judge, and dismissed the second writ petition, emphasizing adherence to judicial discipline and the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction
- alternative remedy
- judicial discretion
- administrative law
- public service tribunal
