SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) The writ petition was originally filed seeking the following principal relief: - "a) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issued commanding the respondents to forthwith take steps for release of and/or handing over the Flat No. A -1 belonging to the petitioners to them without any undue delay."
(2.) It was dismissed by the Hon'ble Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas (as His Lordship then was) originally on 5th May, 2011. An appeal was thereafter preferred by the writ petitioner which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide a judgement passed on 8th June, 2011. It was directed therein - "His Lordship (that is the Trial Court) shall take decision independently. This Court only has settled the issue on consent of the parties in this matter on the question of alternative remedy and not otherwise. It is agreed by the parties that the observations recorded in our order on the question of alternative remedy are acceptable in this case only."
(3.) It is therefore clear that the above observations by the learned Appellate Court were made in the context of the fact that the writ petition was originally dismissed without even the affidavit -in -opposition having been filed by the respondents simply on the ground of existence of the alternative remedy. Therefore, in essence the direction of the Ld. Appellate Court was to allow the respondents to file their affidavit -in -opposition and to decide the matter on merits after completion of the pleadings. Subsequently, the respondents have also filed this application praying for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of its alleged non -maintainability.;