TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (4) TMI 649
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondents having been noticed, raised preliminary questions as regards the maintainability of the writ application. 4. Both the aforementioned contentions as had been raised by the respondents herein, as Indicated hereinbefore, had found favour with the learned trial Judge as a result whereof the writ application was dismissed. 5. Mr. Soumen Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant had principally raised three contentions in support of this appeal. The learned counsel submitted that although under section 55 of the Monoplies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 a forum of appeal before the Supreme Court of India has been created, the same has Its own limitations. In that view of the matter, contends Shri Ghosh, as the appellant herein has raised a question of violation of the principles of natural Justice by the Commission, this writ application could not have been thrown out on the ground of existence of alternative remedy. In support of the aforesaid contention strong reliance has been placed on AIR, 1969 SC 656 and . The learned counsel submits that in a case of this nature, normally, the Supreme Court does not exercise its jurisdiction and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in the question. In this case, the petitioner has filed the writ application. Inter alia, on the ground that on the dale fixed for final argument, the respondent herein had filed a supplementary affidavit but despite adjournment having been sought for. the same had been refused. 8. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to the statements made in paragraph 10 of the stay application wherein the order of the Commission has been reproduced which is to the following effect:-- "Learned senior advocate for the respondent stated that he may be given an opportunity to meet the facts highlighted in the further affidavit on behalf of the applicant and given to his Junior advocate on 25th February, 1999. His contention is that certain new facts have been highlighted in the affidavit and was given to his junior after he had concluded his arguments. Learned senior advocate for the applicant/complainant states that there were new facts in the affidavit but are in continuation of his averments in his rejoinder affidavit. Be that as it may, the learned advocate has been given full opportunity of meeting the new facts if there are any and making his submissions today. Arguments h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its Jurisdiction to entertain writ application on the ground of existence of alternative remedy, the nature of the forum will also have an Important role to play. 13. The further question which would fall for consideration before a Higher Court would be as to whether completely new facts had been brought in before the Commission, upon which reliance had been placed by the respondents herein and the same had a bearing on the order passed by the Commission which is Impugned in the writ application. 14. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that although violation of the principles of natural Justice may not stand as a bar but this court in entertaining a writ application, in a case of this nature, may not do so. Furthermore, it has to be borne in mind, that Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 is an completed Code in itself and appeal from its order lies to the apex court of this country on a question of law. Such a remedy must be held to be a more efficacious, speedy and cheaper one. In the matter of is suance of a Writ of Cretiorari the scope of writ is very limited than a court which can entertain an appeal on a question of law. 15. In this case, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... application was held to be maintainable. 23. In M/s. Boburam Prakesh Chandra Maheswari v. Antarim Zilla Partshad now Zilla Parishad, Muzaffarnagar, the apex court held that the existence of a statutory remedy does not affect the Jurisdiction of the High Court to is sue a writ. But the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken Into consideration in the matter of granting writs and where such a remedy exists it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a writ petition unless there are good grounds therefor. The said decision, therefore, does not assist the learned counsel for the appellant. 24. In L. Hirday Narain; v. Income Tax Officer, Baretlly, the writ application was entertained and the apex court merely held that when the writ application had remained pending for a number of years, the same should not be thrown out on the existence of alternative remedy. Such is not the position here. In this case no rule was is sued and ad Interim order was granted upon waiving the formalities, as is required in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules framed by this court relating to matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However at the first....