The jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available if alternative remedies exist, and exhausting statutory remedies is mandatory before judicial intervention.

1. W.P.No.25806 of 2001: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek for a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings vide No: 17752 / R3(2) / 2001, dated 29-8-2001 granting prospecting licence and the quarry licence vide proceedings No: 34354 / R3/2/2001, dated 12-11-2001 issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 7th respondent as arbitrary, illegal and vitiated by mala fide, misrepresentation and fraud and contrary to the directions of this Court issued in W.P.No:7303 of 1993 dated 16-2-2000:

2. When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, it is brought to my notice that having aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent - Government, but the same has been treated as Revision and the same is pending.

3. At this juncture, it is contended by Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No: 25806 of 2001 that the petitioners are claiming title over the property and filed O.S.12 of 2000 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Ongole seeking for declaration of title and all the official respondents are arrayed as defendants therein and that the respondents having received the notices and aware of the proceedings, ought not to have processed the application of the 7th respondent for the grant of prospecting licence and also the quarry lease and that the NOC issued on 18.3.2000 is contrary to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 7303 of 1993, dated 16.2.2001 by which the Collector was directed to enquire into this matter and ascertain the facts from the revenue records and only thereafter issue no objection certificate in respect of S. Nos. 55/1 to 55/6 of R.L.Puram village, Chimakurthy mandal. As on the date of the enquiry, the petitioners' application is pending and that the Mandal Revenue Officer having knowledge about the judgment of this Court, ought to have referred the matter to the Collector. It is further contended that the petitioners filed an appeal but the same was treated as a revision and the same is pending. Availing of alternate remedy is not a bar nor efficacious and the impugned order is contrary to the order passed by this Court, which cuts the very root of the case and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner.

4. In support of his contention that alternate remedy available to the petitioner, is not a bar to entertain this writ petition, he relied on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in Ram and Sham Company v. State of Haryana 1985 (3) SCC 267 : AIR 1985 SC 1147 wherein it is held as follows:
"BEFORE we deal with the larger issue, let me put out of the way the contention that found favour with the High Court in rejecting the writ petition. The learned Single Judge as well as the division bench recalling the observations of this Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery Industries AIR 1979 SC 1889 rejected the writ petition observing that "the petitioner who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Art.226 of the Constitution must have exhausted the normal statutory remedies available to him". We remain unimpressed. Ordinarily it is true that the Court has imposed a restraint in its own wisdom on its exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 where the party invoking the jurisdiction has an effective, adequate alternative remedy. More often, it has been expressly stated that the rule, which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedie