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