Alternate remedy does not bar writ relief where suspension rests only on an unproven criminal charge-sheet.

Availability of an alternate remedy does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the challenge raises jurisdictional concerns or the impugned action appears prima facie arbitrary or inadequately reasoned. A suspension order based only on the pendency of a criminal case and filing of a charge-sheet, without any finding of guilt, was treated as prima facie unsustainable because mere accusation cannot by itself finally negate fitness, integrity, or propriety. On those facts, the writ court was held entitled to intervene and keep the order in abeyance pending final hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the existence of an asserted appellate remedy barred invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226; (ii) whether the impugned suspension order warranted interim stay on the facts disclosed.

Issue (i): Whether the existence of an asserted appellate remedy barred invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226

Analysis: The availability of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. Where the challenge raises a serious issue of jurisdiction or maintainability, or where the impugned action is prima facie egregious and affected by a lack of proper reasoning or application of mind, the writ court may still exercise its equitable and discretionary powers. The controversy regarding whether an efficacious appeal lay against an order passed by the Whole Time Member also weakened the objection based on alternate remedy.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternate remedy was rejected, and writ jurisdiction was held to be available in the case.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned suspension order warranted interim stay on the facts disclosed

Analysis: The impugned order proceeded on the basis that pendency of a criminal case and filing of a charge-sheet, without any finding of guilt, could by itself render the petitioner not fit and proper to continue as a registered valuer. The reasoning was found to be prima facie untenable, as mere accusation does not establish guilt and cannot by itself conclude that integrity, reputation, or character have been finally impeached. On that basis, the order was viewed as suffering from serious prima facie infirmity requiring immediate intervention.

Conclusion: Interim stay of the suspension order was granted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was entertained notwithstanding the alternate-remedy objection, and the impugned order was kept in abeyance pending final hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: The existence of an alternate remedy does not oust writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is prima facie jurisdictionally vulnerable or manifestly arbitrary, and a mere charge-sheet, without adjudication of guilt, cannot by itself justify a final adverse finding on fitness and propriety.

---