HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.705 of 2024 30th October, 2025 Jitendra Kumar …………Petitioner Versus Rajani Aggarwal and others …………Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for respondent no.2, through video conferencing. Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate for respondent no.4, through video conferencing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has put to challenge the impugned order dated 09.02.2024, passed by the court of learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class/Sub-District Magistrate, Haridwar, in Case No.60 of 2022-23, Rajani Aggarwal Vs. Jitendra Kumar and others, filed under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.1 that a statutory appeal has been prescribed against the impugned order, passed by learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Haridwar, under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) in Entry No.16 of Schedule II. 3. Relevant provision of the said Act is quoted hereinbelow:- 1 “331. Cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act.- ……………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………… (2) Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie from an order or decree passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule aforesaid: Schedule II (Section 331) No Sec. Description of proceedings Court of original jurisdiction Court of First appeal Second appeal 16. 176 Suit for the division of a holding or a bhumidhar Assistant Collector Ist Class Commissioner Board 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that instead of filing the writ petition an appeal should have been filed as the petitioner cannot bypass the right of statutory appeal saying that pure question of law is involved in the present writ petition and therefore instead of filing the appeal the writ petition be entertained. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner to controvert the submission made by learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.1 has relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court which are referred to hereinbelow for ready reference:- 1. Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others in Civil Appeal No.5201 of 1998. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. 2 But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.” 2. M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-Cum-Assessing Authority & Ors. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:- “4. Before answering the questions, we feel the urge to say a few words on the exercise of writ powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution having come across certain orders passed by the high courts holding writ petitions as "not maintainable" merely because the alternative remedy provided by the relevant statutes has not been pursued by the parties desirous of invocation of the writ jurisdiction. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 is plenary in nature. Any limitation on the exercise of such power must be traceable in the Constitution itself. Profitable reference in this regard may be made to Article 329 and ordainments of other similarly worded articles in the Constitution. Article 226 does not, in terms, impose any limitation or restraint on the exercise of power to issue writs. While it is true that exercise of writ powers despite availability of a remedy under the very statute which has been invoked and has given rise to the action impugned in the writ petition ought not to be made in a routine manner, yet, the mere fact that the petitioner before the high court, in a given case, has not pursued the alternative remedy available to him/it cannot mechanically be construed as a ground for its dismissal. It is axiomatic that the high courts (bearing in mind the facts of each particular case) have a discretion whether to entertain a writ petition or not. One of the self- imposed restrictions on the exercise of power under Article 226 that has evolved through judicial precedents is that the high courts should normally not entertain a writ petition, where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available. At the same time, it must be remembered that mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of 3 the high court and render a writ petition "not maintainable". In a long line of decisions, this Court has made it clear that availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the "maintainability" of a writ petition and that the rule, which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy provided by a statute, is a rule of policy. convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Though elementary, it needs to be restated that "entertainability" and "maintainability" of a writ petition are distinct concepts. The fine but real distinction between the two ought not to be lost sight of. The objection as to "maintainability" goes to the root of the matter and if such objection were found to be of substance, the courts would be rendered incapable of even receiving the lis for adjudication. On the other hand, the question of "entertainability" is entirely within the realm of discretion of the high courts, writ remedy being discretionary. A writ petition despite being maintainable may not be entertained by a high court for very many reasons or relief could even be refused to the petitioner, despite setting up a sound legal point, if grant of the claimed relief would not further public interest. Hence, dismissal of a writ petition by a high court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper. 5. A little after the dawn of the Constitution, a Constitution Bench of this Court in its decision reported in 1958 SCR 595 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Nooh) had the occasion to observe as follows: 10. In the next place it must be bome in mind that there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy. It is well established that, provided the requisite grounds exist, certiorari will lie although a right of appeal has been conferred by statute, (Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 11, p. 130 and the cases cited there). The fact that the aggrieved party has another and adequate remedy may be taken into consideration by the superior court in arriving at a conclusion as to whether it should, in exercise of its discretion, issue a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings and decisions of inferior courts subordinate to it and ordinarily the superior court will decline to interfere until the aggrieved party has exhausted his other statutory remedies, if any. But this rule requiring the exhaustion of statutory remedies before the writ will be granted is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law and instances are numerous where a writ of certiorari has been issued in 4 spite of the fact that the aggrieved party had other adequate legal remedies. 6. At the end of the last century, this Court in paragraph 15 of the its decision reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others) carved out the exceptions on the existence whereof a Writ Court would be justified in entertaining a writ petition despite the party approaching it not having availed the alternative remedy provided by the statute. The same read as under: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights, (ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice; (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (iv) where the vires of an Act is challenged. 7. Not too long ago, this Court in its decision reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 884 (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax vs. M/s. Commercial Steel Limited) has reiterated the same principles in paragraph 11. 8. That apart, we may also usefully refer to the decisions of this Court reported in (1977) 2 SCC 724 (State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.) and (2000) 10 SCC 482 (Union of India vs. State of Haryana). What appears on a plain reading of the former decision is that whether a certain item falls within an entry in a sales tax statute, raises a pure question of law and if investigation into facts is unnecessary, the high court could entertain a writ petition in its discretion even though the alternative remedy was not availed of; and, unless exercise of discretion is shown to be unreasonable or perverse, this Court would not interfere. In the latter decision, this Court found the issue raised by the appellant to be pristinely legal requiring determination by the high court without putting the appellant through the mill of statutory appeals in the hierarchy. What follows from the said decisions is that where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the high court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available.” 6. I have gone through the judgments passed on 5 by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The facts of the judgments quoted by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present set of facts, therefore the judgments are of no help to the counsel for the petitioner in this case. 8. Accordingly writ petition stands dismissed; however it is open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy which is available to him under law. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 30.10.2025 SK 6