( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02/03/2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1123 of 1997 whereby the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition of the appellant solely on the ground that alternative remedy being available the appellant must resort to the alternative remedy.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) BY now it is a well settled principle of law that availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for granting relief in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) IN the present case between 4th March, 1992 and 31st December, 1992 the appellant had booked rakes for carrying coal to Gurla. A sum of rs. 3,56,69,671/- which had been collected from the appellant over a period of time by mistake. That the mistake has been committed is admitted by the respondent herein and it has duly been noted by the High Court. However, the High Court, in our view, erroneously rejected the claim on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. On the aforesaid premises the High Court dismissed the writ petition with the direction to the appellant to approach the Ra