Back
SARAL SRIVASTAVA
Indrajeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of UP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following relief:-
(iii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) to award the cost of the present writ petition in favour of the petitioner."
3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing application under Section 76 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that despite the fact that petitioner has submitted application under Section 76 of the U.P. Revenue Code, but the said application is not being accepted by the competent authority.
5. In such view of the fact, petitioner is directed to submit an application under Section 76 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with certified copy of the present orde
Exhaustion of alternative remedies before seeking a writ of mandamus.
Availability of alternative remedy under section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction, with exceptions for violations of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction.
A writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy when the impugned order violates principles of natural justice.
The U.P. Revenue Code's provisions regarding appeals are self-contained and govern the necessity of filing documents, overriding general procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
