sans sunlight. The only short question involved is as to legality of selective cancellation of allotment of flats; this can be adjudged with fair degree of certainty & swiftness on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the material available on record. That would do at least delayed justice, which the petitioners have to take at the hands of this Court, for no fault of theirs. At this length of time, if they are relegated to ordinary remedy of civil suit, that would only elongate the waiting period of the litigants. The Court, as an institution, has to preserve the faith of right thinking section of the society in the judicial process. Further, one has to keep in mind that human life is too short to be little, said Thomas Carlyle. At least, as a concession to shortness of human life, litigation period has to be cut short. Otherwise, people may start eying extrajudicial remedies and that would not augur well to the Rule of Law. After all, the doctrine of alternate remedy is not a constitutional prescription. It is only judicial invention to save time & energy of constitutional courts. Therefore, the said doctrine cannot be treated as the Great Wall of China to keep worthy litigants away from access to writ remedies. It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who in DAVIS v. MILLS ,1 observed as under:
