1. Approval for construction of aerial ropeway — Objections against grant — Representation rejected. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 558
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
Damodar Ropeways And Infra Limited, Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Deepak Saxena - Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate, Jaipur, Near Collectorate Circle, Banipark, Gopalbari, Jaipur, Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11206 of 2024
Decided On : 09-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Adv. with Mr. Shubhendra Singh Mr. Saksham Pandey.
For the Respondents: Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with Mr. S. P. Singh Rajawat, Mr. Aryan Jagret, Mr. Abhi Goyal with Ms. Meenal Bhargava, Mr. Hardik Mishra, Mr. Amit Gupta with Ms. Harshita Bhala.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Adv. with Mr. Shubhendra Singh Mr. Saksham Pandey.
For the Respondents: Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with Mr. S. P. Singh Rajawat, Mr. Aryan Jagret, Mr. Abhi Goyal with Ms. Meenal Bhargava, Mr. Hardik Mishra, Mr. Amit Gupta with Ms. Harshita Bhala.
A writ petition under Article 226 is generally not maintainable if an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists, unless there is a violation of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the legislation's vires.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Ropeways Act, 1996 - Section 22 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maintainability of writ petition in the presence of an alternative efficacious remedy - Order passed by Licensing Authority on a representation regarding grant of license - Whether such order is appealable under Section 22 - Decision on objections regarding eligibility and credentials is part and parcel of the decision to grant a license - Held, such order is an order made by the Licensing Authority under the Act and is challengeable by filing an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. (Paras 8, 10, 12)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Exhaustion of alternative remedy - High Court has discretion not to entertain a writ petition where an effective alternate remedy is available - Exceptions to this rule include: (i) enforcement of a fundamental right; (ii) violation of principles of natural justice; (iii) orders wholly without jurisdiction; or (iv) challenge to the vires of a legislation. (Paras 14, 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
An application was filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order and a writ of mandamus to declare a license granted for the construction of an aerial ropeway as invalid. The petitioner had previously submitted objections to the licensing authority regarding the eligibility of the licensee. Following a previous court direction, the licensing authority had decided these objections via a reasoned and speaking order. The petitioner subsequently challenged both the grant of the license and the speaking order through a writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order deciding the objections was passed by the Licensing Authority in the exercise of its powers under the Act. Since the observations made on the objections pertain to the criteria for granting the license, such an order is an integral part of the licensing process and is therefore appealable under Section 22 of the Act. Consequently, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy.
Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 22 of the Act, specifically concerning an order passed by the Licensing Authority on a representation.
Ratio Decidendi: When a right is created by a statute that prescribes a specific remedy for enforcement, that statutory remedy must be exhausted before invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, unless the case falls within narrow exceptions such as violation of natural justice or fundamental rights. An order passed by a licensing authority on objections to the grant of a license constitutes an order under the Act and is subject to statutory appeal.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Writ not maintainable due to alternative remedy of appeal under Section 22, Rajasthan Ropeways Act, 1996. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Order on objection as to grant of licence is an order under the Act and appealable. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. All orders by Licensing Authority under Rajasthan Ropeways Act, 1996 are appealable under Section 22. (Para 7 , 10 )
5. Writ disposed of — Petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal before Appellate Authority. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
6. Whether an order rejecting objections against grant of a licence under the Act is appealable?
Yes. Such an order is passed by the Licensing Authority under the Act and thus appealable under Section 22. (Para 10 )
7. What are the exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy under Article 226?
Exceptions include enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, wholly without jurisdiction, or challenge to vires of legislation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
Order :
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
“a. Issue appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the effect quashing impugned Order 01.05.2024.
b. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to declare any license granted to Respondent No. 2 as violate of the provisions of Rajasthan Ropeways Act, 1996 along with all acts/permissions/LOI granted pursuant thereto by any authority be invalid/nullity in the eyes of law.
c. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondent No.1 to appropriately deal and act on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 6 dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure-1) by adhering to the provisions of the Ropeways Act.”
2. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is having an alternative efficacious remedy of an appeal under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Ropeways Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act, 1996’) so as to make challenge to the order and action impugned.
3. For consideration of the aforesaid preliminary objection the material facts of the case are as under :-
(a) The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 applied under Section 6 of the Act of 1996 to undertake the necessary preliminary investigation in regard to the proposed ropeway. The respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 3 to undertake construction of the passengers ropeway at Shree Garh Ganesh Temple, Jaipur. Further, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change granted the respondent No. 2 the wildlife clearance for the construction of the proposed ropeway at Shree Garh Ganesh Temple, Jaipur and thereafter the respondent No. 2 obtained final / stage-II approval for forest clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest. The petitioner being aggrieved by the final approval in favour of the respondent No. 2 raised certain objections before the respondent No. 1. When the respondent No. 1 did not redress the grievances raised by the petitioner in his representation, he preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13497/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.03.2024 with the direction to the respondents authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner on its merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to him as well as to the respondents and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 01.05.2024 has decided the objections raised by the petitioner.
4. The basic grievance raised in the petition by the petitioner is the approval for construction of aerial ropeway at Shree Garh Ganesh Temple, Jaipur in favour of the respondent No. 2 and so also the decision dated 01.05.2024 and observations of the respondents authorities on the representation submitted by him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 22 of the Act of 1996 is only in relation to grant of approval for construction of aerial ropeway but no remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner against the order passed by the respondents authorities on a representation under the directions of the Hon’ble High Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the petitioner is having an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 22 of the Act of 1996 so as to challenge the order of approval for construction of the aerial ropeway, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Counsel also submits that the order of rejection of the representation has become part of approval and therefore same can also be challenged by filing an appeal under Section 22 of the Act of 1996. Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has also referred the judgment delivered
