The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appeal remedy available under the H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959 is not precluded by allegations of fraud, and therefore, must be exhausted before filing a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

1. Impugning the order, dated 05.06.1992, in O.A.No.30 of 1990, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. ADMN Department, Tiruchirapalli, the present civil revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The Registry has returned the papers questioning the maintainability of the civil revision petition, as it has been pointed out that as against the impugned order, the appeal remedy is available under the H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959 and hence, the petitioner, without exhausting the said appeal remedy, is not entitled to maintain the civil revision petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the civil revision petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as he has impugned the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department on the ground of fraud committed by his counsel in collusion with the opponent party and in this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon decision reported in 2015 (1) CTC 156 [A. Shameem Ahmed and other vs. A. Mohammed Hashim]. Accordingly, the matter had been listed before the Court for further orders.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Court that even though, the appeal remedy is available under H.R. & C.E. Act, as against the impugned order, still as the petitioner had taken the plea of fraud committed by his counsel in collusion with the opponent party so as to defeat his right in the matter, according to him, the civil revision petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in support of the same, the above cited decision as well as another decision reported in (2017) 2 Supreme Court Cases 748 [Bithika Mazumdar and another vs. Sagar Pal and others] are relied upon. However, it is found that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable.

4. When, it is specifically noted that the petitioner has the appeal remedy, being a statutory one under the H.R. & C.E.Act., it is for the petitioner to exhaust the said remedy and thereafter pursue further remedies as available under the Act and in such view of the matter, the laying of the civil revision petition by the petitioner as against the impugned order by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is found to be unacceptable. The appeal remedy provided under the Act does not state that when the petitioner pleads fraud or other similar allegations, the appeal is not available under the Act and only he has to invoke the jurisdiction under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is, thus, found that even the plea of fraud as alleged by the petitioner on his counsel in collusion with the opponent party is taken, still the appeal remedy is available to the petitioner as provided under the Act and in such view of the matter, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that considering the plea taken by him for sustaining his case, this civil revision petition is maintainable as such cannot be entertained.

5. As regards the decisions relied upon by him, it is found that no where in the said decisions, it has been stated that when the party pleads fraud or makes allied allegations, he is not required to exhaust the appeal remedy available under the Act and he is competent to lay the civil revision petition directly before the High Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is found that in the above said decisions, the orders have come to be made holding that the civil revision petitions are maintainable as deemed fit considering the facts and circumstances of the case involved in the said case and in such view of the matter, as the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, do not in any manner state that the petitioner can ignore the statutory appeal remedy provided under Act and straightaway lay a civil revision petition in the