When a statutory appellate remedy is available, the High Court will generally decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India until such alternative remedy is exhausted.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXURE -A VIDE ANNEXURE-C DATED 25-2-2025 TO RECONSIDER/REVIEW THE ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF VIDE ANNEXURE-C DATED 08.12.2022 PERMISSION TO REMOVE THE AFFECTING TREE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is permitted vide the Order dated 10.01.2022 to cut a full-grown tree in his property. This permission is accorded under the provisions of the Karnataka Tree Preservation and Protection Act, 1976 , but this permission is recalled by the impugned order dated 08.12.2022 in exercise of power purportedly conferred under the aforesaid Act.

Sri Dhanaraja M, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the respondents, are heard.

It emerges that a statutory appeal lies against the impugned order. This Court does not find any reason to interfere when there is an alternative remedy, and as such, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail such statutory remedy calling upon the appellate authority to decide on the appeal so filed expeditiously.