KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN the reply to the writ petition the respondents have raised a preliminary objection that in the writ petition number of the disputed question of facts are involved and for adjudication thereof the evidence is necessary and this petition is not the appropriate remedy. Second preliminary objection has been raised that this petition has been filed after considerable delay. The Court has also put the learned counsel for the petitioner that in such matters the petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy by way of raising the industrial dispute or raising a dispute u/sec. 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that in the matter the petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy u/sec. 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies act but what he contends that this petition has been admitted and is pending for the last more than four years, the petitioner at this stage may not be relegated to the alternate remedy. So far as the alternate remedy for raising the industrial dispute is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this remedy is not available to the petitioner as the petitioner is not a workman. However, it is not disputed hat the respondent No. 2 is an industry. It is next contended that the respondents have not raised this objection re-the maintainability of the petition on the ground of the availability of the alternate remedy to the petition and this Court may not relegate the petitioner to the alternate remedy. It is true that this petition has been admitted and pending for all these years but I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the other side has not raised the objection re-the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy this petition cannot be dismissed on this ground. It is the duty of the petitioner as well as the requirement of the Rajasthan High Court Rules that the petitioner has to state in the writ petition that he has no other alternate remedy except to approach this Court by way of the petition in the matter.
(3.) IN para No. 29 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he has no alternate efficacious remedy in the case. That averment made by the petitioner is absolutely incorrect and in fact it amounts to suppression of material and important fact from the Court. As per the petitioner's own case in the matter that is a service matter the petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy available of raising the dispute u/sec. 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act but this has not been stated. IN a case where the litigation has efficacious alternate remedy available in the matter and where it is chooses to file writ petition directly in this Court it is a legal obligation upon him to disclose this fact and gives the exceptional circumstances to justifies his direct approach to the court by the petition. The alternate remedy if it is there in the matter it has to be availed of first by the litigant. It is not a constitutional bar but it, is a self imposed restriction and only in exceptional cases the litigant can be permitted to bye pass or circumvent the efficacious alternate remedy available in the matter. It has to be specifically mentioned by the petitioner that for the given exceptional reasons and grounds this alternate remedy may not be taken to be a bar to entertain the petition. In this petition the petitioner has not given out the exceptional reasons which may justify his direct approach to this Court by this petition in a matter where undisputedly he has efficacious alternate remedy of raising of the dispute u/sec. 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act. It is difficult to accept as a rule as that the petition has been admitted the Court has no jurisdiction to relegate the petitioner to the alternate remedy though undisputedly available to him. Similarly it is also difficult to accept as rule that where the respondents have not raised this objection the Court cannot itself raise this objection. When the matter is placed before the Court for admission or final hearing it is within its jurisdiction to look into the matter and where it is satisfied that efficacious alternate remedy is available in the matter and looking to the facts of this case that remedy has to be availed of first it is always permissible and open to it to relegate the litigant to that remedy. ;