JUDGMENT :

Vide order dated 25.07.2023, notices were directed to be issued upon respondent no.2 and interim protection was provided to the petitioner in W.P.(Cr.) No.371 of 2023. On 13.09.2023, W.P. (Cr.) Nos. 371 of 2023 and 393 of 2023 were adjourned on the submission of the learned counsel for the State as on that day, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III was indisposed and the matters were again taken on 05.10.2023 and on that day, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for respondent no.2 raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that if the case is arising under the provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the provision of appeal under Section 14A of the said Act is there and in view of that, the writ petitions are not maintainable and on that day, W.P.(Cr.) Nos. 371 of 2023 and 393 of 2023 were adjourned and directed to be tagged with W.P.(Cr.) No.327 of 2023 to address on the preliminary issue.

2. Accordingly, these matters have been listed today for addressing the issue on the point of maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Mrs. Vandana Singh and Mr. Deepankar, learned counsel for the State on the point of maintainability of the writ petitions.

4. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that preliminary issue framed by this Court vide order dated 05.10.2023 is required to be answered in favour of respondent no.2 in view of the fact that the High Court does not act as a Court of appeal against the decision of a Court or Tribunal to correct the errors of fact and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and exercise power when alternative remedy provided by the statute is there. He further submits that the learned Court has already taken cognizance and that order can be challenged under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. To buttress this argument, he relied upon paragraph 7 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal & others v. The Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri and others, reported in (AIR 1964 SC 1419), which reads as under:

“7. Against the order of the Commissioner an order for reference could have been claimed if the appellants satisfied the Commissioner or the High Court that a question of law arose out of the order. But the procedure provided by the Act to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court was bypassed, the appellants moved the High Court challenging the competence of the Provincial Legislature to extend the concept of sale, and invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and sought to reopen the decision of the Taxing Authorities on question of fact. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary : it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. Resort that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate exami