In Smt. Payel Sarkar Vs. Sri Bilash Mohan Baidya and others., a point was sought to be urged before the Calcutta High Court that mere existence of alternative remedy cannot deter the High Court to exercise power of superintendence enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Court held that while there is no quarrel to such proposition of law, it is equally true that such rule is not rigid. It is a rule of discretion than of compulsion. If the point agitated in instant revisional application can be conveniently urged before the National Commission, this Court, therefore, feels that it is not a fit case where the court should exercise discretion in entertaining the revisional application.
Comments
Post a Comment