Jagdish Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Jagdish Bhalla, C.J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment in the, case of Ram and Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and accordingly submitted that the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, and therefore, the learned Single Judge should have shown interference under extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred upon him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that even of the alternative remedy has been availed, the appellant has right to file the writ petition and in support of his submission, relies upon the relevant portion of paragraph 4 of the judgment in the case of Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari Vs. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar, which runs as under:

...In view of the allegations of the appellant that the taxing provisions are ultra vires and that there was violation of the principles of natural justice, we think that the High Court was in error in summarily dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had an alternative remedy of statutory appeal....

The aforesaid case before the Supreme Court clearly indicates that the vires was challenged, however in the present case, the vires is not under challenge and whatever is under challenge, can be scrutinized by the competent authority concerned.

We find that the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, however, if someone has availed the alternative remedy, he cannot avail the second remedy. In the present case, the appellant had already availed the alternative remedy, therefore, he cannot seek protection of the aforesaid two judgments. The aforesaid judgments are with respect to the cases where alternative remedy has not been availed. No one can avail two remedies at the same time, therefore, the appellant could not challenge the order in question before the learned Single Judge. We further find that the matter is pending before the Chief Engineer.

In light of the above, we do not find any ground to show interference. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.