CWP No. 2943 of 2008. 08.01.2009 Present: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. At the first hearing, learned Advocate General submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and the rights of the petitioner are being infringed. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable and the petitioner need not go to avail alternative remedy. Today, after arguing the case to almost to its logical end on merits of the case, it has been submitted by the learned counsel on the instructions of the petitioner that the petitioner wants to avail alternative remedy. This leads us to a point to ponder whether the petitioner has come with clean hands before this Court. The record, which has also been produced before this Court, speaks in volumes against the petitioner. In light of above, we do not find it to be appropriate to allow the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. Therefore, we reject the prayer of the petitioner to avail alternative remedy at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner was praying for interim relief. However, we find that no interim relief application has been moved by the petitioner. Therefore, no interim relief can be granted. After this order was passed learned Counsel for the petitioner does not want to press this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed, so also all other pending applications. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. January 08, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (rc)