https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458556 Availability of an effective statutory appeal under the service regulations weighed against writ intervention under Article 226, because the petitioner had already invoked that remedy and no exceptional circumstance justified bypassing it; the writ petition was therefore not maintainable on that point, and the petitioner was required to pursue the appellate process. The request concerning retention of official quarters could not be reopened because an earlier Division Bench order on the same issue had attained finality; that relief was barred by res judicata. The petition was rejected, while the appellate authority was directed to decide the statutory appeal expeditiously. en-us Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Nov 2024 14:15:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458556 Availability of an effective statutory appeal under the service regulations weighed against writ intervention under Article 226, because the petitioner had already invoked that remedy and no exceptional circumstance justified bypassing it; the writ petition was therefore not maintainable on that point, and the petitioner was required to pursue the appellate process. The request concerning retention of official quarters could not be reopened because an earlier Division Bench order on the same issue had attained finality; that relief was barred by res judicata. The petition was rejected, while the appellate authority was directed to decide the statutory appeal expeditiously. Case-Laws SEBI Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458556