Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Patidar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 July, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT INDORE
WP No.12423/2021
Anil Patidar & Anr. Vs. State of MP & Ors.
Indore: Dated:-22/07/2021:-
Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondents/State.
With the consent, finally heard.
ORDER
The challenge is mounted in this petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution to order dated 01/07/2021 (Annexure P/9)
whereby learned Collector has taken a decision against the
petitioner.
2) Learned counsel for petitioner at the outset submits that
although this order is appealable before Director, Mining, this
matter may be entertained because in WP No.20718/2020, this
Court has interfered with the matter despite availability of
alternative remedy.
3) Shri Godha, learned counsel by taking assistance of
relevant Rules submits that order of learned Collector is
erroneous and, therefore, interference may be made.
4) Prayer is opposed by learned Additional Advocate General
for the State by contending that alternative statutory remedy is
available to the petitioner.
5) Indisputably, the order is appealable. In fact petitioner
succeeded in appeal in the previous round and Appellate
Authority by order dated 14/12/2020 (Annexure P/7) remitted the
matter back before the Collector and in turn, Collector has passed
the order on 01/07/2021. Thus, availability of appellate remedy
2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT INDORE
WP No.12423/2021
Anil Patidar & Anr. Vs. State of MP & Ors.
and its efficacy is beyond doubt.
6) The order passed in WP No.20718/2020 is an order passed
on consensus and is of no assistance to the petitioner. This is trite
that despite availability of statutory remedy, the writ petition can
be entertained, but it is only a discretion and not a compulsion on
the Writ Court. After considering the judgment of Supreme Court
in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade
Marks, Mumbai & Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Apex Court opined
that despite availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition
can be entertained in certain situations. This judgment was again
considered by Supreme Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd.
Vs. R.S. Pandey & another (2005) 8 SCC 264. The relevant para
reads as under:-
"17. 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 supplied)
7) In view of this judgment, it is clear that ordinarily
interference should not be made when there exists a statutory
alternative remedy. It is not the case of petitioners that Collector
did not have jurisdiction/competence at all and relegating the
3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
BENCH AT INDORE
WP No.12423/2021
Anil Patidar & Anr. Vs. State of MP & Ors.
petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal will cause palpable
injustice to him. Thus, we decline interference because of
availability of alternative remedy.
8) If petitioner prefers an appeal before the Competent
appellate Authority within 10 working days from today, the said
appeal shall be entertained on merits and be decided in
accordance with the law.
9) With the aforesaid observation, writ petition is disposed of.
CC as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
soumya
Digitally signed
by SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Date: 2021.07.22
16:39:31 +05'30'
