RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. - (1.)THIS intra -court appeal impugns the orders dated 07.11.2013 and 10.01.2014 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.5079/2013 preferred by the appellant and inter alia holding the writ petition preferred by the appellant impugning the order dated 20.10.2011 of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) to be not maintainable owing to the remedy of appeal under Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002 being available thereagainst. The learned Single Judge having not gone into the merits of the writ petition, need is not felt to set out the same. The only question for consideration is of the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of the COMPAT and which order admittedly is appealable to the Supreme Court under Section 53T (supra). The counsel for the appellant merely stated that he has set out the judgments relied upon by him in support of the proposition of maintainability of the writ petition in the memorandum of appeal before us.
(2.)THE appellant / writ petitioner, in the memorandum of appeal has referred to L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, Timbak Vs. Ram Chandra AIR 1977 SC 1222, Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 744, State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86, Seth Chand Ratan Vs. Pandit Durga Prasad AIR 2003 SC 2736, Shri Ambica Mills Vs. S.B. Bhatt AIR 1961 SC 970, R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India 1993 AIR 1769, Dulal Chandra Hazarika Vs. Assam Board of Revenue AIR 1971 Gauhati 123, Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. S. Viswanathan 2005 (3) SCC 193, B.E. Supply Co. Vs. The Workmen AIR 1972 SC 303, S. Parthasarathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 2701, Syed Yakoob Vs. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477 and Ouseph Mathai Vs. M. Abdul Khalid (2002) 1 SCC 319.
A Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us was a member) in judgment dated 23.02.2012 in W.P.(C) No.1077/2012 titled Union of India Vs. Aircel Ltd. and other connected matters was similarly concerned with the maintainability of the writ petition against the order of Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), whereagainst also the remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court was available under Section 18 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act). While Section 53T supra with which we are concerned, provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court against ''any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal '', Section 18 of the TRAI Act provided for an appeal against ''any order, not being an interlocutory order ''. It would thus be seen that scope of appeal under Section 53T is much wider than the appeal under Section 18 of the TRAI Act. The Division Bench of this Court held the writ petitions to be not maintainable in view of the statutory remedy available before the Supreme Court.

(3.)RELIANCE was placed by the Division Bench inter alia on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Association of India (2011) 14 SCC 337. The Supreme Court in the said judgment was directly concerned with the question, whether this Court was justified in entertaining the writ petitions against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, ignoring the statutory remedy of appeal to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission available under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Supreme Court in the said judgment inter alia held as under:
''11. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions. There cannot be any dispute that the power of the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parliamentary legislation - L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261. However, it is one thing to say that in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order passed by or action taken by the State and/or its agency/instrumentality or any public authority or order passed by a quasi -judicial body/authority, and it is an altogether different thing to say that each and every petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution must be entertained by the High Court as a matter of course ignoring the fact that the aggrieved person has an effective alternative remedy. Rather, it is settled law that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

15. In the judgments relied upon by Shri Vaidyanathan, which, by and large, reiterate the proposition laid down in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari Vs. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar AIR 1969 SC 556, it has been held that an alternative remedy is not a bar to the entertaining of writ petition filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order under challenge is wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of the statute is under challenge.

16. It can, thus, be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. However, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes (supra) and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for rederssal of grievance still hold field.

25. What has surprised us is that the High Court has not even referred to Sections 17 and 19 of the 1986 Act and the law laid down in various judgments of this Court and yet it has declared that the directions given by the State Commission are without jurisdiction and that too by overlooking the availability of statutory remedy of appeal to the Respondents. ''