A writ petition is maintainable despite alternative remedies when the claim's genuineness is undisputed, ensuring justice is served.

1. The petitioner being sole proprietor of M/S Global Infotech has filed this writ application praying for a direction upon the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to release the dues and legitimate claim of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 77,319/- in terms of the bills raised by the petitioner. The petitioner has supplied some articles to Radhanagar, Gram Panchayat, Diglipur, North Andaman on various occasions and thereby the petitioner is entitled to get from Radhanagar, Gram Panchayat a sum of Rs. 77,319/- in total. Such materials were supplied by the petitioner way back in the year 2010, but despite several reminders the Pradhan of Radhanagar, Gram Panchayat did not release any fund in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has thereafter lodged a written complaint being No.2929 dated 17.10.2013 to the Grievance Cell constituted under the authority of Lieutenant Governor of these islands apprising him of the grievances and after hearing, the said grievance cell directed the concerned authority to settle the bills forthwith. Pursuant to such direction made by the Lieutenant Governor of these Islands regarding non payment of bills to the petitioner, the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Randhnagar, Diglipur wrote a letter to the Director, Directorate of RD & PRI and ULBS, Port Blair whereby the Panchayat Secretary admitted that he had received all the bills. The bills of the petitioner has not yet been encashed due to in action on the part of the respondents and that - s why this writ application has been filed for specific direction upon respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to release the legitimate dues of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.77,319/- .

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that bills of the petitioner have now been processed and passed by the concerned authority and the said bills are going to be encashed shortly. Learned advocate for the petitioner further contended that direction be given to the respondents to make payment to the bills of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

3. Mr. V. D Sivabalan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 2 contended that the instant writ application is not maintainable in law since the petitioner has had an alternative remedy of filling money suit in order to redress his grievances.

4. It is further contended by Mr. V. D. Sivabalan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 that the petitioner has filed this writ application despite having alternative remedy and accordingly the writ petition ought to be dismissed on such ground alone.

5. It is true that the writ petition has been filed for release of funds against supply of some articles to the Pradhan of Randhnagar, Gram Panchayat. The petitioner could have filed the money suit in order to get back his legitimate dues.

6. Curiously enough the remaining respondents did not turn up despite service of notice. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent 1 and 2 has also not challenged the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner.

7. It is settled principle of law that the application under Art.226 of Constitution of India is not maintainable when an alternative and specific remedy is available to the petitioner. However, the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner has not been challenged by any of the respondents. Technicalities of law shall not defeat the purpose of justice. The petitioner has virtually prayed for a direction against the respondents to act in accordance with law and the writ petition has been filed against inaction on the part of state machinery to address the grievances of the petitioner. It is true that we cannot d