WPSS No.257/2003 Mr. M. S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Anjali Bhargawa, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Learned Standing Counsel for the State raised an objection that the S.S.B. is notified under the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short “C.A.T.”) and in view of para 95 of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. The Union of India & others J.T. 1997 (3) SC 589 in which it has been held that the Tribunal will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted and it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal; the present petition is cognizable by the C.A.T. because the petitioner has an alternative remedy. As such, the writ petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner should have first approached to the C.A.T. In view of above, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed with the direction that the petitioner may seek his redressal before the C.A.T. if he desires so. However, the C.A.T. while computing the period of limitation to entertain such petition to be filed by the petitioner will consider the time spent in prosecuting this writ petition in this court. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 11.09.2009 LSR