IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12/11/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NOS.9734, 10357, 10358, 10407, 10408, 10409, 10410 AND 12239 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS W.P.NO.9734 OF 2010 M/s.Green Express Division of Green Carriers and Contractors (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Area Manager R.Varadarajan ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Chief Traffic Manager Southern Railway Headquarters Office Commercial Branch, Freight Marketing 5th Floor, MMC, Chennai – 600 003. 2.The Chief Commercial Manager Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. 3.The Senior Commercial Manager Southern Railway Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Tender Notice No.1/2010-2011 dated 08.04.2010 of leasing of parcel space in parcel vans of the 1st respondent and quash the same pertaining to one parcel van of Train No.2641/2642 from Kanyakumari to Nizamudin, one parcel van of Train No.2643/2644 from Trivandrum to Nizamudin and one parcel van of Train No.2647/2648 from Coimbatore to Nizamudin consequently direct the respondents to extend the periods of lease agreements for Train https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.2641/2642, Train No.2643/2644 and Train No.2647/2648 for a further period of 2 years as stipulated under Clause 18.1 of the Agreement dated 29.05.2007, 16.05.2007 and 16.05.2007 respectively by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 20.04.2010. For Petitioner :Mr.K.M.Vijayan Senior counsel for Mr.R.Selvakumar For Respondents :Mr.R.Thiagarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar W.P.NO.10357 OF 2010 M/s.Tamilnadu Super Service Rep. by its Branch Manager Mr.Budhraj Kankaria ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Chief Traffic Manager Southern Railway Headquarters Office Commercial Branch, Freight Marketing 5th Floor, MMC, Chennai – 600 003. 2.The Chief Commercial Manager Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. 3.The Deputy Chief Commercial Manager Moore Market Complex, 4th Floor, Southern Railway Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the letter of the 1st respondent in No.C. 206/86/40/38/VPH/T.34/2651/2652 dated 29.03.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend the period of lease agreement for Train No.2651/2652 from Chennai Egmore to Nizamudin in a round trip for a further period of 2 years as stipulated under Clause 18.1 of the Agreement dated 10.05.2007. For Petitioner :Mr.K.M.Vijayan Senior Counsel for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates For Respondents :Mr.R.Thiagarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.NO.10358 OF 2010 M/s.Tamilnadu Super Service Rep. by its Branch Manager Mr.Budhraj Kankaria ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Chief Traffic Manager Southern Railway Headquarters Office Commercial Branch, Freight Marketing 5th Floor, MMC, Chennai – 600 003. 2.The Chief Commercial Manager Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. 3.The Deputy Chief Commercial Manager Moore Market Complex, 4th Floor, Southern Railway Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the letter of the 1st respondent in No.C. 206/86/40/38/VPH/Ten.32 dated 23.10.2009 and the incidental Tender Notice No.1/2010-2011 dated 08.04.2010 of leasing of parcel space in parcel vans so far as tender notice pertaining to one parcel van of Train No.2664/2663 of the 1st respondent and quash the same consequently direct the respondents to extend the periods of lease agreement for Train No.2664/2663 for a further period of 2 years as stipulated under Clause 18.1 of the Agreement dated 25.10.2006 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 11.02.2010. For Petitioner :Mr.K.M.Vijayan Senior Counsel for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates For Respondents :Mr.R.Thiagarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.NO.10407 OF 2010 M/s.Northern Freight Carriers Represented by its Partner Mr.Brij Kishore Garg ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Chief Traffic Manager Southern Railway Headquarters Office Commercial Branch, Freight Marketing 5th Floor, MMC, Chennai – 600 003. 2.The Chief Commercial Manager Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. 3.The Deputy Chief Commercial Manager Moore Market Complex, 4th Floor, Southern Railway Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the letter of the 1st respondent in No. C. 206/86/40/38/VPH/T.34/6317/6318 dated 29.03.2010 and the incidental Tender Notice No.1/2010-2011 dated 08.04.2010 of leasing of parcel space in parcel vans so far as tender notice pertaining to one parcel van of Train No.6317/6318 of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend the period of lease agreement for Train No.6317/6318 for a further period of 2 years as stipulated under Clause 18.1 of the Agreement dated 28.03.2007 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 05.05.2010. For Petitioner :Mr.K.M.Vijayan Senior Counsel for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates For Respondents :Mr.R.Thiagarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.NO.10408 OF 2010 M/s.Northern Freight Carriers Represented by its Partner Mr.Brij Kishore Garg ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Chief Traffic Manager Southern Railway Headquarters Office Commercial Branch, Freight Marketing 5th Floor, MMC, Chennai – 600 003. 2.The Chief Commercial Manager Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. 3.The Deputy Chief Commercial Manager Moore Market Complex, 4th Floor, Southern Railway, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the letter of the 1st respondent in No. C. 206/86/40/38/VPH/T.34/6317/6318 dated 29.03.2010 and the incidental Tender Notice No.1/2010-2011 dated 08.04.2010 of leasing of parcel space in parcel vans so far as tender notice pertaining to one parcel van of Train No.6317/6318 of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend the period of lease agreement for Train No.6317/6318 for a further period of 2 years as stipulated under Clause 18.1 of the Agreement dated 28.03.2007 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 05.05.2010. For Petitioner :Mr.K.M.Vijayan Senior Counsel for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates For Respondents :Mr.R.Thiagarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.NO.10409 OF 2010 M/s.Northern Freight Carriers Represented by its Partner Mr.Brij Kishore Garg ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Chief Traffic Manager Southern Railway Headquarters Office Commercial Branch, Freight Marketing 5th Floor, MMC, Chennai – 600 003. 2.The Chief Commercial Manager Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. 3.The Deputy Chief Commercial Manager Moore Market Complex, 4th Floor, Southern Railway, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the letter of the 1st respondent in No. C. 206/86/40/38/VPH/T.34/6687/6688 dated 29.03.2010 and the incidental Tender Notice No.1/2010-2011 dated 08.04.2010 of leasing of parcel space in parcel vans so far as tender notice pertaining to one parcel van of Train No.6687/6688 of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend the period of lease agreement for Train No.6687/6688 for a further period of 2 years as stipulated under Clause 18.1 of the Agreement dated 05.04.2007 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 05.05.2010. For Petitioner :Mr.K.M.Vijayan Senior Counsel for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates For Respondents :Mr.R.Thiagarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.NO.10410 OF 2010 M/s.Northern Freight Carriers Represented by its Partner Mr.Brij Kishore Garg ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Chief Traffic Manager Southern Railway Headquarters Office Commercial Branch, Freight Marketing 5th Floor, MMC, Chennai – 600 003. 2.The Chief Commercial Manager Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. 3.The Deputy Chief Commercial Manager Moore Market Complex, 4th Floor, Southern Railway, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the letter of the 1st respondent in No. C. 206/86/40/38/VPH/T.34/6687/6688 dated 29.03.2010 and the incidental Tender Notice No.1/2010-2011 dated 08.04.2010 of leasing of parcel space in parcel vans so far as tender notice pertaining to one parcel van of Train No.6687/6688 of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend the period of lease agreement for Train No.6687/6688 for a further period of 2 years as stipulated under Clause 18.1 of the Agreement dated 28.03.2007 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 05.05.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Vijayan Senior Counsel for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates For Respondents :Mr.R.Thiagarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.NO.12239 OF 2010 Anil Bareja Proprietor M/s.Xtra Freight Forwarder ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Chief Traffic Manager Southern Railway Headquarters Office Commercial Branch, Freight Marketing 5th Floor, Moore Market Complex, Chennai – 600 003. 2.The Deputy Chief Commercial Manager Freight Marketing Southern Railway 5th Floor, Moore Market Complex, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent relating to the impugned tender notification bearing ref: Tender Notice No.1/2010- 2011, dated 08.04.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend the leasing of Parcel Vans in Train Nos.6031/6032 for transporting parcels from Chennai Central to Jammu Tawi and from Jammu Tawi to Chennai Central to the petitioner for a period of two years. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Vijayan Senior Counsel for M/s.Sai Bharath & Ilan For Respondents :Mr.R.Thiagarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar COMMON ORDER The Southern Railway entered into agreements for three years with the petitioners, who were the successful tenderers, for leasing of Parcel Space in Parcel Vans in Trains. After the expiry of the period of agreements, the Southern Railway issued a letter dated 29.03.2010 extending the period of agreements for three more months or till the finalisation of tender, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, the first respondent issued the tender notice dated 08.04.2010 inviting tenders for leasing out Parcel Space in Parcel Vans in various Trains, including the Trains that are involved in these writ petitions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The petitioners have questioned the tender notice dated 08.04.2010 and the letter dated 29.03.2010 insofar as extending the period of lease agreement for three more months only and for a consequential direction to the respondents to extend the period of lease agreement for a further period of two years as stipulated under Clause 18.1 of the agreement. 3.However, in W.P.No.9734 of 2010, the letter dated 29.03.2010 of the first respondent, extending the period of lease agreement for three more months, was not put to challenge. 4.Likewise, in W.P.No.10357 of 2010, the tender notice dated 08.04.2010 was not put to challenge, as the tender notice does not include the Train concerned in this writ petition. 5.The details relating to the date of agreement, the Train numbers and the agreement period for each writ petition are given hereunder: W.P.Nos. Date of Agreement Train No. Agreement Period 9734 / 2010 16.05.2007 2643 / 2644 17.04.2007 –16.04.2010 16.05.2007 2647 / 2648 15.04.2007 –14.04.2010 29.05.2007 2641 / 2642 04.04.2007 –03.04.2010 10357 / 2010 10.05.2007 2651 / 2652 08.04.2007 –07.04.2010 10358 / 2010 25.10.2006 2664 / 2663 25.10.2006 –24.10.2009 10407 / 2010 28.03.2007 6317 / 6318 31.03.2007 –30.03.2010 10408 / 2010 28.03.2007 6317 / 6318 31.03.2007 –30.03.2010 10409 / 2010 05.04.2007 6687 / 6688 17.04.2007 –16.04.2010 10410 / 2010 28.03.2007 6687 / 6688 03.04.2007 –02.04.2010 12239 / 2010 18.05.2007 6031 / 6032 15.04.2007 –14.04.2010 6.According to the petitioners, as per Clause – E of the Freight Marketing Circular No.12 of 2006, dated 27.03.2006 and Clause 18.1 of the agreement, the lease period has to be extended for two more years, after the expiry of three years lease period, at 25% above the existing lease rate. 7.According to the petitioners that though the new policy was announced by the Railway Board, by way of Freight Marketing Circular No.3 of 2010 dated 09.02.2010, deleting Clause – E of the earlier Freight Marketing Circular No.12 of 2006 dated 27.03.2006 providing for extension of lease period for two more years, another Freight Marketing Circular No.6 of 2010 dated 18.03.2010 makes it clear that the existing leases are not governed by the Policy Guidelines issued in the Freight Marketing Circular No.3 of 2010 dated 09.02.2010 and on the other hand, the existing leases are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ governed by the Freight Marketing Circular No.12 of 2006 dated 27.03.2006. In this regard, the petitioners relied on Clause 2.1 of the Freight Marketing Circular No.6 of 2010 dated 18.03.2010. 8.The respondents filed separate counter affidavits refuting the allegations made by the petitioners. 9.It is averred in the counter affidavits that the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy under Clause 24.3 of the agreement and hence, the writ petitions are not maintainable. On merits, it is averred that the Southern Railway took a policy decision, not to extend the lease period for two more years, as such a course, would cause huge loss to the Exchequer. It is also stated that at the time of award of earlier contract, the reserve price was 1.25 times of "P" scale, whereas the present reserve price stipulated by the Ministry of Railways is 1.25 times of "R" Scale. According to them, there was an increase of 50% in the reserve price alone. On studying the market condition and the manifold increase in demand, the Railway administration decided to go for fresh tender. Further, it is stated that extension of lease period cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is not automatic, especially when the same causes huge loss to the Exchequer. 10.The respondents provided the details of the projected loss, if the agreement is simply extended for two more years to the petitioners at 25% above the existing lease rate and the same are extracted hereunder: Sl. No W.P.N o Rate at which lease being operated by petitione r Rate at which lease being operated by petition er + 25% Current Reserve price No. of off ers rec d. Highest offer received Loss per servic e if extens ion is given to petiti oner No. of servi ce for 2 years Loss for 2 years if extensio n is given to petition er Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. RS. 1 12239 /2010 1,44,580 1,80,725 2,11,970 13 2,51,251 70,526 312 22004112 2 9734/ 2010 1,14,080 1,42,600 1,67,930 2 3 9734/ 2010 1,15,000 1,43,750 1,71,530 1 4 9734/ 2010 1,10,124 1,37,655 1,59,140 3 Not opened as per the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Madras 25,330 104 2634320 27,780 104 2889120 21,485 104 2234440 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No W.P.N o Rate at which lease being operated by petitione r Rate at which lease being operated by petition er + 25% Current Reserve price No. of off ers rec d. Highest offer received Loss per servic e if extens ion is given to petiti oner No. of servi ce for 2 years Loss for 2 years if extensio n is given to petition er 5 10408 /2010 1,31,242 1,64,053 1,96,450 6 10407 /2010 1,31,242 1,64,053 1,96,450 6 2,37,555 73,502 104 7644208 2,37,555 73,502 104 7644208 7 10409 /2010 1,30,192 1,62,740 1,92,830 8 10410 /2010 1,30,192 1,62,740 1,92,830 5 2,31,555 68,815 104 7156760 2,31,555 68,815 104 7156760 9 10358 /2010 96,600 1,20,750 1,31,540 12 1,71,200 50,450 208 21372416 10 10357 /2010 1,28,800 1,61,000 Tender not called for - - - - - 11.The respondents also stated in the counter affidavits that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.10357, 10358, 10408, 10409 and 12239 of 2010 violated the provisions of the agreement and paid penalty. Thus, they are not eligible for consideration, for extension of lease period, even as per Clause 18.1 of the agreement. 12.In reply, the petitioners stated that existence of alternative remedy is not a bar for exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that as per Clause 3.2 of the agreement, no budgetary increase would be applicable during the currency of the contractual period and that therefore, the change in the classification and reserve price, could not be cited for denying extension of lease period for two years. The petitioners also cited various extension orders issued by other Railways. It was further stated that the penalties were imposed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners and without following the Rules and Regulations. Hence, those penalties should not be taken into account for deciding the eligibility as to the extension of lease agreement. 13.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 14.The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Arbitration Clause in the agreement could not be relied on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the respondents as providing an alternative remedy disentitling the petitioners to seek redressal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the respondents acted arbitrarily and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The learned senior counsel further submitted that as per the Policy Guidelines and Clause 18.1 of the agreement, the petitioners are entitled to extension of lease period for two more years. Hence, the writ petitions are maintainable. 15.The learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments in support of his contention that the writ petitions are maintainable despite the existence of alternative remedy: 1) Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1 2) Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in ABL International Ltd., Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited reported in CDJ 2004 SC 208 3) Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s.SEIL Ltd. reported in CDJ 2008 SC 1355 4) Judgment of this Court in E.Mohan Vs. Madras Fertilizers Limited reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 2538 16.The learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments in support of his contention that the respondents are bound to extend the lease period for two more years in accordance with Clause 18.1 of the agreement and the Policy Guidelines issued in Freight Marketing Circular No.12 of 2006 dated 27.03.2006. 1) Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in W.P.Nos.23926, 23927 and 23928 of 2007 (decided on 11.05.2010) 2) Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.Nos.141 and 1378 of 2010 (decided on 23.02.2010) 17.The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners were not heard before imposing penalties, those penalties should not be taken note of for deciding the eligibility for extension of lease period. In this regard, the learned senior counsel relied on the Division Bench judgment of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Calcutta High Court in M.A.T.No.409 of 2007 (decided on 19.12.2007) and the judgment of the Assam High Court in Nirmal Traders Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2003 GAUHATI 122. 18.On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the Southern Railway contended that in similar circumstances, this Court rejected the writ petition in W.P.No.23326 of 2008, seeking extension of lease period, on 20.01.2009 and the same was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.158 of 2009 (decided on 24.04.2009). He further submitted that the petitioners could not claim as a matter of right for extension of lease period and it was at the discretion of the Southern Railway. The Southern Railway exercised its discretion and decided not to extend the lease period to any of the agreement holders, taking into account the market conditions and the huge loss that could be caused, if the lease period is extended, without going for fresh tender. The learned senior counsel has taken me through Clause 18.1 of the agreement and laid more emphasis on the word "CAN" suggesting that it was only a discretion to the Railway administration. Thus, if other Railways exercised discretion in some matters to grant extension of lease period for two years, that could not be cited in favour of the petitioners. 19.The learned senior counsel for the respondents distinguished the judgments of Calcutta High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court saying that those judgments do not lay down a law that the extension of lease period is automatic. On the other hand, as stated above, the learned senior counsel relied on the judgment of this Court referred to above. The learned senior counsel has taken me to the tabular statement enclosed in the typed set relating to the projection of loss, if the lease is extended for two more years to the petitioners at 25% of the existing lease rate. 20.In reply, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the word "CAN" in the agreement has to be read as "SHALL / MUST" in the context of agreement and he relied on the following judgments of the Honourable Apex Court, in this regard. 1) State of U.P Vs. Jogendra Singh reported in AIR 1963 SC 1618 2) Rangaswami, The Textile Commissioner Vs. Sugar Textile Mills Private Limited reported in CDJ 1977 SC 056 3) State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. I.K.Nangia reported in 1980 (1) SCC 258 4) Orissa Textile and Steel Ltd., Vs. State of Orissa reported in 2002 (2) SCC 578 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 21.I have considered the submissions made on either side. 22.The following issues arise for consideration in all these writ petitions. (1) Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in spite of existence of alternative remedy ? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for automatic extension of lease period as per Clause 18.1 of the agreement and Clause – E of the Freight Marketing Circular No.12 of 2006 ? Issue No.1:- 23.The learned senior counsel for the respondents relied on Clause 24 of the agreement which provides for arbitration, whenever there is a dispute arises between the petitioners and the respondents. The learned senior counsel further submitted that there is a remedy provided under the aforesaid clause and that therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. 24.On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the existence of alternative remedy is not a bar for this Court to entertain writ petition, if there are allegations to the effect that the respondents State under Article 12 of the Constitution, acted arbitrarily in not extending the lease period and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. In this regard, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court and this Court referred to in para 15 of this judgment. 25.According to the petitioners, other Railways, in similar circumstances, extended the lease period and also the Calcutta High Court as well as the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the respective Railways to extend the lease period. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners also relied on the following judgments in this regard. 1) Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in W.P.Nos.23926, 23927 and 23928 of 2007 (decided on 11.05.2010) 2) Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.Nos.141 and 1378 of 2010 (decided on 23.02.2010) 26.I am of the view that the decisions relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners relating to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the maintainability of the writ petitions despite the existence of alternative remedy squarely apply to the present writ petitions also and the writ petitions could not be dismissed on the technical plea of maintainability. These writ petitions cannot be rejected at the threshold on the ground of existence of alternative remedy. This Court has to examine the aforesaid serious allegations made by the petitioners. In this regard, para 15 of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1 is extracted hereunder: "15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to