IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9278 of 2026 Raghubir Prasad Lath …. Petitioner . Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mallick, Advocate -versus- Pradyumna Kumar Lath & Ors. …. Opp. Parties Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 17.04.2026 01. 1. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks the following relief: - “The Petitioner therefore, prays that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Petition, issue notice to the Opposite Parties and after hearing both the parties, the Writ Petition be allowed quashing the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda in Misc. Case No.175 of 2025 i.e., Annexure-10. Kindly by issue of writ of certiorari. And any order/orders, writ/writs, direction/directions be passed which shall be deemed proper for the ends of justice:” 2. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is to the effect that his name was entered in the ROR by the Tahsildar, Jharsuguda, in connection with an application under Section 8(A) bearing Case No.1 of 1989. However, subsequently, the self-same Authority i.e. the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda reversed the said order in Revenue Misc. Case No.175 of 2025, thereby reviewing its earlier order which is stated to be not in accordance with law. p. 2 3. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Behura, submits that the present writ application is not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy available under law. 4. Needless to say, when an alternative efficacious remedy is available, the High Court is not readily to entertain a Writ Application; although it is no more res integra that the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be ousted or curtailed even by legislation, far less by the existence of an alternative remedy in a particular case. However, a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition is a discretionary remedy, and the High Court normally should refuse to exercise its higher prerogative writ jurisdiction when the writ petitioner has an alternative remedy available under law. 5. Considering, therefore, the submissions of the learned AGA, there being a statutory appeal provided under the relevant provision, the Petitioner may raise all these contentions before the Appellate Authority. 6. Hence, this Court is not inclined to indulge in the present Writ Application and the same is accordingly disposed of; giving liberty to the Petitioner to resort to the appellate provision, wherein all the contentions of the parties may be opened for discussion. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Priyanka Designation: Senior Stenographer