- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion, the order dated 18-6-98, Annexure 40 to the writ petition, passed under Section 2 (13) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by Sri Ramesh Kumar Misra, Vice-Chan cellor, Gorakhpur University, recognising the Committee of Management, of which S/sri Nar Singh Narain Pandey and Amar Nath Misra, respectively are President and Manager, elected in the meeting of 18-9-1997, has been challenged and it is prayed that it may be quashed. The consequential order of me same date passed by the Dis trict Inspector of Schools attesting the sig natures of Amar Nath Misra is also sought to be quashed with further prayer that the respondents be restrained from interfer ing with the functioning of the petitioner No. 2 Dr. Balram Bhatt as Manager of the Committee of Management which is petitioner No. 1.
(2.) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, assisted by Sri S. C. Dwivedi learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. N. Singh, assisted by Sri VP. Sahi, learned Counsel for the respondents. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the Vice-Chancellor-respondent No. 2 has com mitted a grave error in passing the im pugned order dated 18-6-1998 as he has recognised and permitted unauthorised persons, namely, Amar Nath Misra, Nar Singh Narain Pandey and Anil Kumar Ghosh, whose names even do not find a place in the list of members of the Society, issued by the Assistant Registrar, Chits, funds and Societies and by excluding the petitioner No. 2, who has been held to be the member of the Society by the decision of this Court, which has been finally ap proved by the Hon. Supreme Court. Learned Counsel took me through the various documents, including decisions of this Court as well as Supreme Court. Sri R. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 urged that he has abstained to file a counter-affidavit purposely in view of the fact that the present petition is not maintainable on account of the availability of alternative and efficacious remedy under the provisions of Section 68 or the Act. It was prayed that the writ petition being not maintainable, should be dismissed in limine.
(3.) I have given thoughtful considera tion to the matter. There is no doubt about the fact that the apex Court has in a num ber of cases laid down that merely on the ground that an alternative remedy is avail able, the High Court need not throw the petitioner under Article 226 of the Con stitution. Sri R. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents also frank ly conceded that there are some cases in which, unmindful of the bar of alternative remedy, petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution may be entertained by this Court, in exercise of its plenary jurisdic tion to do complete justice in the matter, but certainly, there are certain parameters beyond which this Court cannot go. I, therefore, proceed to decide the prelimi nary objection taken by Sri R. N. Singh that since the petitioners have an alternative remedy, under Section 68 of the Act and unless this remedy is exhausted, the juris diction of this Court under Article 226 cannotbeinvoked. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioners did not contest the point that an alternative remedy under Section 68 is very much available to the petitioners, but according to him, the present is a case in which exceptional cir cumstances exist to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. In support of his contention, Sri Khare placed reliance on the two decisions of the Supreme Court-the first is D. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya Sitapur (UP) and Ors. , AIR 1987 SC 2186 and the other is Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal v. State of U. P. and Ors. (1995)1 SCC 614.;