Jugal Kishore Bhargava vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard.

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that impugned order, Annexure P/8, is appealable under the relevant Act. However, he submits that without affording adequate opportunity and without following the principle of natural justice, the impugned order is passed and, therefore, writ petition can be entertained despite availability of alternative remedy. He argued that competent authority, as mentioned in Annexure P/8, is in fact not competent.

Prayer is opposed by Shri Raghuvanshi on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

No doubt that despite availability and statutory alternative remedy, the writ petition can be entertained in certain circumstances. On a specific question from the Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any pleading which may support the contention that the authority, who has passed the order, Annexure P/8, is not competent. In other words, there is no pleading challenging the competency of the officer, who has passed the impugned order. Para 2 of impugned order shows that the notice was "affixed" on the shop of the petitioner. Whether or not it is actually affixed is highly disputed question of fact, which can be gone into by the appellate authority. The appellate authority is best suited to decide this aspect.

The petitioner is unable to show that if he is relegated to avail the statutory alternative remedy, it will cause any palpable injustice to him.

The Apex Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and Another, the Apex Court opined as under:-

Where under a statute there is an allegation of infringement of fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess can be the grounds on which the writ petitions can be entertained. But normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute.

(Emphasis added)

Considering the aforesaid, I find no reason to interfere in this petition. It is open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy and prefer a stay application before the said authority.

With aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merit, petition stands disposed of.