IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2780 of 2011 Y.P.Singh @ Yogendra Prasad Singh, S/o- Late Bindeshwar Prasad Singh, r/o- village- Narar (West), P.s.- Jay Nagar, District- Madhubani. …… Petitioner Versus 1. The Food Corporation Of India through the Managing Director, Food Corporation of India (F.C.I.), 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi. 2. The Executive Director, East, Food Corporation of India, 10-A, Middleton Road, Kolkata-71. 3. The General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Exhibition Road, Arunachal Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Saharsa. 5. The Manager (D), Food Storage Depot (F.S.D.) Saharsa. 6. Sri Daya Nath Mishra (D.N. Mishra), s/o- Late Triloki Nath Mishra, r/o- village + P.O.- Khojori Matihari Via- Chapam, District- Saharsa. 7. Md. Sarfaraj Khan, s/o- Late Md. Hamid Khan at present posted as the Area Manager, F.C.I., Near Bus Stand, Saharsa. ……. Respondents with CWJC No.2055 of 2011 Ajay Kumar Jha, s/o- Late Mukti Nath Jha, r/o- village Sonebarsa, P.O.- Lagma, District- Saharsa. ……… Petitioner Versus 1. The Food Corporation Of India through the Managing Director, Food Corporation of India (F.C.I.), 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi. 2. The Executive Director, East, Food Corporation of India, 10-A, Middleton Road, Kolkata-71. 3. The General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Exhibition Road, Arunachal Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Saharsa. 5. The Manager (D), Food Storage Depot (F.S.D.) Saharsa. 6. Sri Daya Nath Mishra (D.N. Mishra), s/o- Late Triloki Nath Mishra, r/o- village + P.O.- Khojori Matihari Via- Chapam, District- Saharsa. 7. Md. Sarfaraj Khan, s/o- Late Md. Hamid Khan at present posted as the Area Manager, F.C.I., Near Bus Stand, Saharsa. ……. Respondents ----------- 3 28.07.2011 Both matters raise common issue and, therefore, have been heard together. The present order shall govern both of them. Petitioners in both the applications assail the order of punishment dated 27.8.2010 contained in Annexure-16 (in both 2 the writ petitions). Learned counsel for the petitioners made diverse submissions in support of the application. It is the stand of the petitioners that alternative remedy would not be a bar in invocation of writ jurisdiction by this Court. Mr. Tekriwal, referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit(s), states that the petitioners suppressed relevant facts from this Court in the writ petition inasmuch as before lodging the application in this Court, they had preferred appeal against the impugned orders in terms of Regulation 68 of the F.C.I. Staff Regulation, 1971. This Court, on perusal of the writ petitions, finds that the aforesaid facts have not been disclosed therein. Considering the said fact, this Court refuses to invoke its extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction in the matter and instead, relegate the petitioners to approach the concerned respondent for expeditious disposal of their statutory appeals. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation is not able to state the current status of the appeal. In that view of the matter, this Court, while declining the invocation of its writ jurisdiction in the matter in favour of the writ petitioners observes /directs that the appeal(s) preferred by the petitioner(s), if not already disposed of, shall be disposed of in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 3 Both the writ applications stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)