Risggndenfs (Passed I x AL ORDER August 2007) Versus 5mm of Chhamsgarh Through Depurtmenf of OR on 14’“ ////\ \ \ having regard To fhe fac‘rs of the case, has a discre'rion 1’0 en‘rer'fain or no? 1’0 enferTain a writ pe‘ri‘rion. But fhe High Courf has imposed upon ifself cer‘rain restricfions one of which is Thaf if an effecfive and efficacious remedy available, The High Cour-1' would‘ no-r normaily‘exercise i'rs jurisdicfion. Bu'r The aHerna‘t-ive remedy has been consis‘l‘en'rly held by fhis Cour? nof 1’0 operafe as a bar in a'rleasf Three confingencies, namely, where The wri-r pe‘ri'rion has been filed for fhe enforcemeni’ of any of fhe fundamenl'al righ‘rs or ‘ where There has been a violaTion of The principle of naTural jusTice or where The order or proceedings are wholly wiThouT jurisdicTion or The vjres of an acT is challenged. This famous judgmenT has been followed by The Apex CourT judgmenT in The maTTer of LK Vanna Vs HMT Limifed and another in AIR 2005 5mreme C'aurf 975. IT is admiTTed case of The par'ries ThaT There is alTernaTive remedy of filing The appeal. This CourT finds ThaT The appellaTe auThoriTy can even granT inTerim order, Therefore, iT can be said ThaT The alTernaTive remedy is efficacious. However, This CourT has furTher looked inTo The facT wheTher peTiTioner has alleged The violaTion of fundamenTal right In reply I find ThaT no such plea has been raised by learned counsel for The peTiTioner. Secondly, peTiTioner has noT alleged any violaTion of principles of naTural jusTice. FurTher he did noT raise any ground ThaT The demand ‘2 noTice is wiThouT JurisdicTion in lighT of The Apex CourT judgmenTs \ \ , while examining fhe al'rerm‘rive remedy. I find affer' fes'l’ing 'Hqe Three grounds available in ‘rhe 5upreme Courf’s judgmenfs fhaf fhere is an aifernafive remedy, efficacious in na‘rure. Therefore, 'rhis wri1' pe‘rifion is dismissed, as fhere is an al‘rerna‘i'ive remedy. Sdl— Jagdish Bhalla Ag. Chief Justice podma