Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Mohd. Hasnain – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 8643 of 2024
Decided On : 03-10-2024
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Mansoor, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 6-Gram Sabha Saraydamu.
2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged validity of a judgment and order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class/Tehsildar Sadar, District Raebareli in Case No. RST/6410/2023, under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
3. The learned counsel for the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection that the order has been passed under Section 67(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Collector under Sub-Section (3) or Sub-Section (4), may within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Collector.
4. The learned Standing Counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himanchal Predesh & Ors. AIR 2021 SC 2114, wherein the principles regarding availability of alternative remedy were summarized in the following words:
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person.
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law.
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.”
5. The learned Standing Counsel has also relied upon a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Career Convent Educational & Charitable Trust & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. Misc. Bench No. 8889 of 2020 decided on 16.06.2020, wherein the Division Bench declined to entertain the writ petition in view of availability of statutory remedy under Section 67(5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
6. Replying to the aforesaid preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the Tehsildar had passed an order dated 06.01.2024 under Section 67(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ (C) No. 263 of 2024, which was entertained and allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 12.01.2024 in spite of existence of statutory remedy of appeal. In these circumstances, it is not proper for this Court to decline to entertain the writ petition this time on the ground of availability of statutory remedy.
7. The learned counsel for the petition
The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction, with exceptions for violations of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction.
The existence of an adequate alternate remedy under statutory provisions justifies the dismissal of a petition challenging an administrative order, emphasizing the self-imposed discipline of Constitu....
Availability of alternative remedy under section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
A writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy when the impugned order violates principles of natural justice.
Point of Law : The doctrine of precedent or Stare Decisis is a settled principle of law that a judgment, which has held the field for a long time, should not be unsettled. The doctrine of ' Stare Dec....
It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition....
The right to appeal or revise under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, remains intact for suits filed before the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing that such rights are substant....
Point of Law : Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out.
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
