THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.243 OF 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri D.Vishwajeet Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.Ananthasen Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, Mines and Geology, for the respondents.

2. With the consent finally heard.

3. This intra-Court appeal takes exception to the order dated 24.12.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.41330 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge relegated the appellants to statutory alternative remedy under Rule 35 of The Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that no doubt, such alternative remedy exists, the question is that the writ petition was entertained in the year 2022 and it remained pending for quite some time. On merits, it is submitted that when the appellants were put to a show cause notice dated 06.08.2022, they filed a reply on 15.10.2022. While passing the final order, the reply was not properly considered. Thus, principles of natural justice were violated and decision making process was faulted. In this backdrop, the availability of alternative remedy is not a bar.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants further submits that apart from the above, learned Single Judge, during the pendency of writ petition, by order dated 13.04.2023, directed the Revenue Authorities to prepare a report. The said report was, indeed, filed in the writ proceeding. However, the said findings were not taken into account in correct perspective.

6. Lastly, reliance is placed on a Google map (page No.164) to show the location of land, etc. In nutshell, it is argued that the present writ appeal may be entertained and matter be decided on merits.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, Mines and Geology opposed the prayer and supported the order of learned Single Judge.

8. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

9. While issuing notice in the writ petition, it was not pointed out to the Court that there exists a statutory alternative remedy.

Thus, the question is whether despite availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition was entertainable.

10. The Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1, opined that in cases of violation of principles of natural justice, despite availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition can very well be entertained. The said judgment was again considered by the Apex Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Another, (2005) 8 SCC 264 and it was opined as under:-

“17. …But normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute….”

(Emphasis Supplied)

11. Thus, it is clear that unless something more is shown which goes to the root of the matter and shown that the order impugned itself is without authority of law, on mere violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petition is not entertainable. The impugned order in the writ petition was not called in question on the ground of competency.

12. The Apex Court in its recent judgment dated 10.04.2024 in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank disapproved the order of Telangana High Court in W.P.No.5275 of 2021, dated 04.02.2022, wherein a Division Bench of this Court entertained a Writ Petition despite availability of alternative remedy. The Apex Court opined that merely because a petition is maintainable, it is not necessary to entertain a petition. It is the discretion of the Court to entertain a petition and not a compulsion. The relevant