D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner is an employee in the Northern Railway. He was sought to be transferred from one place to another by an order dated 14.7.1995. This order has been sought to be challenged by means of this writ petition.
(2.) Mr. Govind Saran, learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of Section 28 read with Sections 14 and 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. According to him, by reason of ouster of jurisdiction and conferment of the jurisdiction on the Tribunal specially constituted under the said Act, the petitioner is precluded from seeking his remedy before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on the principle as enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1125, which had only permitted the orders passed by the Tribunal to be amenable to revision of scrutiny by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution while specifically precluding a person seeking a remedy Included in the scheme of the said Act from approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution even if it involves intricate question of interpretation of the constitution of decision with regard to the vires of the statute.
(3.) Shri S. C. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that by reason of various decisions which he had cited, namely, the decisions in the case of Lt. Col. Balraj Chibbar and others v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and others, 1995 ACJ 1095 Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal v. State of U. P. and others, 1996 (2) UPLBEC 1055 and A. V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani and another, AIR 1961 SC 1566, the existence of alternative remedy will not preclude this Court from entertaining an application under Article 226 of the Constitution particularly when the affidavits have been exchanged and the matter has been entertained by this Court for a quite long time. According to him, the ratio decided in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra), in fact has rendered the remedy under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act as an alternative remedy while making the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution available to a person claiming relief in respect of matters falling within the ambit of the said Act either before the Tribunal or before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, this Court should decide the case on merit on the basis of the ratio decided in the cases cited by him.;