The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly when an aggrieved individual can avail alternative efficacious statutory remedy.

1. - This matter comes up before this Court in the spirit of Lok Adalat for disposal.

2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 18th of December 2013 passed by Additional Excise Commissioner, Jodhpur Zone, whereby while passing order under Section 69 read with Section 54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act 1950 (for short, Act of 1950), it has ordered release of vehicle Scorpio No.RJ-07-UA-0281 subject to the condition that petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lac fifty thousand only).

3. The vehicle of the petitioner aforesaid was seized by the Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur and a case under section 19/54 of the Act of 1950 was registered against the petitioner for unauthorizedly carrying contraband i.e. english wine without permission or licence.

4. When the matter came up before this Court at the threshold, on 9th of January 2014 the Court while admitting the petition issued notice to the respondents and passed following interim order:

"In the meanwhile, the vehicle confiscated shall not be put to auction provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- within a period of two weeks and furnishes solvent surety for the remaining amount to the satisfaction of District Excise Officer, Jodhpur. On compliance of the order passed as aforesaid by the petitioner, the vehicle seized shall be released to him on Supardginama."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case registered against the petitioner is false and therefore impugned order is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the interim order vehicle in question has already been released after deposition of the requisite amount quantified by the Court and therefore the matter is required to be decided on merit.

6. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the Excise Department, Dr. Sachin Acharya has argued that against the impugned order equally efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 9A of the Act of 1950 and therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

8. The question about availability of alternative remedy is vital and for examining the said question it is necessary to have a glance at Section 9A of the Act of 1950. Section 9A of the Act of 1950 reads as under:

"Section 9-A - Appeals and Revision -

(1) An appeal shall lie -

(a) to the Excise Commissioner from any order passed by an Excise Officer under this Act, and

(b) to the Division Bench of the Rajasthan Tax Board constituted under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Act No. 4 of 2003)] from any order passed by the Excise Commissioner under this Act otherwise than on appeal:

(2) Any appeal under Sub-section (1) may be preferred at any time within sixty days from the date of the order complained of.

(3) The decision of the Excise Commissioner or Division Bench of the [Rajasthan Tax Board] as the case may be, on such appeal shall, subject to the result of revision, if any, under Sub-section (4), be final.

(4) The Division Bench of the Rajasthan Tax Board may revise any order passed on appeal by the Excise Commissioner.

Provided that no appeal shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a satisfactory proof of payment of 75% of the amount of the demand created by the order appealed against.

(5) Any revision under Sub-Section (4) may be preferred at any time within thirty days form the date of the order complained of.

9. It is a trite law that extraordinary jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly when aggrieved individual can avail alternative efficacious statutory remedy. True it is that there is no absolute bar to entertain a writ petition when alternative remedy is available, but then it is a self-imposed restriction which the law Courts are following consistently.

10. Thus, in view of remedy available to