AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard.
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19.6.2014 (Annexure P-1). Shri Mahesh Goyal fairly admits that there exists an alternative remedy u/s 308/323 of Municipalities Act, 1961 but prayed for entertaining this petition directly on the singular ground that before passing impugned notice, Annexure P/1, no opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
No doubt, writ petition can be entertained despite availability of a statutory alternative remedy but that is a matter of discretion and not of compulsion. It is not argued that the order dated 19.6.2014 is passed by an authority, who does not have jurisdiction. It is argued that principles of natural justice are violated. The Apex Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and Another, , opined that in such circumstances, unless it is shown that relegating the party to approach the alternative forum will cause palpable injustice and unless it is shown that the order is without jurisdiction, normally the petitions may not be entertained.
The relevant portion reads as under:-
Where under a statute there is an allegation of infringement of fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess can be the grounds on which the writ petitions can be entertained. 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 added)
Considering the aforesaid and because of availability of remedy u/s 308/323 aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. Petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent forum u/s 308/323 of Municipalities Act or u/s 3(8) of Municipal Corporation Act. It will be open for the petitioner to prefer a stay application along with main proceedings. I am only inclined to observe that it will be lawful for the competent authority to immediately take up and hear the stay application of the petitioner.
With aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits, petition stands disposed of.