IMPORTANT POINT
The availability of alternative remedy under specific law may preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, except in exceptional cases involving a pure question of law or vires of an Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent JBVNL.

2. In the present petition, the prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 06.06.2023. The prayer is also made to supply certain data.

3. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the provisional assessment in W.P.(C) No.349 of 2009 which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by order dated 29.1.2009. Aggrieved with that, LPA No.65 of 2009 was filed and the said LPA was allowed by order dated 09.02.2023. He submits that the order of learned Single Judge that has been quashed, the matter was remitted back to the learned Superintending Engineer, Hazaribagh who is the competent authority to take a decision in light of section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. He submits that in view of the Division Bench judgment the petitioner filed the objection and without providing any opportunity of hearing in terms of section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003, the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 has been passed. He submits that in view of the provision made therein, an opportunity of hearing was required to be provided, however, the said has not been made and he submits that in view of that the writ petition is maintainable and to buttress his argument he relied in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1. On this ground, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be quashed.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Yadav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent JBVNL submits that after the remand, the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.65 of 2009 the petitioner was called upon and the petitioner on 10.4.2023 has filed his objection as contained in Annexure-8. He submits that a detailed objection is there and considering the submission of the parties the learned Superintending Engineer Hazaribagh has passed the order and he has dealt with all the aspect of the matter and this writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the petitioner is having remedy under section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act of filing of the appeal, however, without availing the said remedy, he has filed the present petition and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603, particularly, paragraph nos. 15, 16 and 17 of the said judgment which are quoted below:

“15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR 1964 SC 1419], Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131 and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

16. In the instant case, the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/reassessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Co