HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8893 of 2024 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Abdul Alim Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. By means of present writ petition petitioners have challenged order dated 12.10.2023, passed by the Additional Collector/Chief Revenue Officer, Bahraich, wherein application under Section 38(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been dismissed. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 is ex-parte order as counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the Chief Revenue Officer due to call for by-cot by the local Bar Association and therefore, in absence of counsel for the petitioners, the impugned order has been passed. 5. It has been next submitted that even the application for restoration of petitioners or order dated 12.10.2023 has been rejected on 25.07.2024. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has alternate remedy of filing appeal against order dated 12.10.2023 and also revision against order dated 25.07.2024 and therefore existence of alternate remedy, present writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 8. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner should be relegated to the alternate remedy of appeal or revision and even otherwise, this Court would not interfere in such a matter where order has been passed in absence of counsel for the petitioner who did not appear of account of call for by-cot by the local Bar Association. This Aspect of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abdul Alim Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Akleem Khan And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) matter has been duly considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45. 9. Considering the fact that petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy, no ground for interference is made out. 10. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious alternate remedy of appeal/revision. December 17, 2025 A. Verma WRIC No. 8893 of 2024 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench