Telangana High Court
M/S. Ncl Industries Limited vs The State Of Telangana on 6 September, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 17233 OF 2022
ORDER:
The Present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 4th respondent - Assistant Director of Mines & Geology in causing the inspection on 22.07.2021 and ETS survey on 24.09.2021, thereby issuing demand notice No.16843/NCL/SRPT/2021 dated 17.03.2022, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, Mines & Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder and consequently, to set-aside the Demand Notice, dated 17.03.2022.
2. The case of petitioner Company is that they have been in the business of manufacturing cement from its factory in Suryapet District and as it is well known, Lime Stone is one of the essential raw materials required for manufacture of cement. Petitioner Company had therefore, applied for and was granted three mining leases in the areas surrounding the factory and uses Lime Stone extracted from these mines as the source of raw materials for cement manufacturing unit. It is stated that the present controversy is with respect to the mining leases granted to petitioner for Lime Stone over an extent of 2 42.82 Hectares in Survey No. 540 of Pedaveedu Village, Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District by way of permitting transfer of lease from Sri K. Rama Chandra Raju to the Company vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.265, Industries and Commerce (M.Il) Department, dated 31.07.1997 for the unexpired period of lease. This lease was initially valid up to 2017, however, pursuant to the introduction of Section 8A to the MMDR Act, 1957, the 1st respondent State had issued orders in G.O.Ms. No.63, Industries and Commerce (M.Il) Department, dated 23.08.2017, thereby extending the lease period to 50 years ie. up to 28.10.2046.
It is further stated that petitioner has been manufacturing cement over 30 years with Lime Stone extracted from the mining leases granted; there has never been a complaint against petitioner company and its operations and whatever minor violations were noticed have always been addressed and compounded or complied with. While so, the 4th respondent issued the notice dated 09.08.2021 informing the company that pursuant to an inspection said to have been conducted by the Technical Staff on 22.07.2021, it has been noticed that company is operating a huge pit within the lease area by developing two benches for mining operations and that the first bench is having an average height of 5.5 meters while 3 the second was having a height of 4.2 meters and that as per average measurements from both the benches, it can be concluded that a total quantity of 15,46,528.5 Metric Tons of Lime Stone was excavated from the leased area as against the total dispatch permits obtained by the company to a quantity of only 4,24,350 Metric Tons since the inception of lease. The 4th respondent accordingly, put petitioner on notice to show cause as to why action shall not be taken for realization of royalties along with the sale price of mineral and differential quantity of 11,21,678.5 Metric Tons.
Petitioner company immediately submitted explanation on 21.09.2021 pointing out that as per the ETS Survey conducted by TRAC during 2019-20, it has been specifically concluded that there was no discrepancy in the quantities of mineral excavated from all the three mines belonging to petitioner including the subject one, up to 22.07.2019. It was further contended that notice that was issued in 2019 with similar allegations had been put to rest by the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in Memo No.3101/NCL/SRPT/2019, dated 02.12.2019 dropping all further proceedings in the matter. It was further pointed out that the estimated quantities have been taken by assuming a Rectangular Cube and that this would not be accurate 4 representation of the quantities excavated. Finally, it was pointed out that there was a big valley portion near the working pit which is also visible from the Eastern part of the pit and that therefore there was no variation in the mined quantity, as is being alleged.
It is also stated that once it has been found that excavated quantities arrived at under the ETS Survey were matching the dispatch permits for material issued up to 22.07.2019, it was impossible now to say that petitioner had excavated mineral in excess of 20 lakh tons within a span of 2 years. It is further stated that once all the quantities of mineral excavated and permits issued had been found to have been matched up to 22.07.2019, issuing a notice once again contending that there is an excess quantity excavated would amount to revisiting a settled dispute and re-opening the case without there being statutory power. It is stated that as on 22.07.2021, the entire leased area and the pit was inundated with rain water and that it was therefore, physically impossible to have measurements. Therefore, there is no sanctity to the alleged inspection conducted on 22.07.2021. It was further stated that having submitted reply to the authorities, petitioner thought that the issue was settled, however, the 4th respondent seems to have approached the TRAC for conducting ETS Survey 5 once again and on 24.09.2021, officers of the 4th respondent and TRAC had arrived at quarry and spent over 6 hours. Around 3.00 PM of 24.9.2021 petitioner's employees were informed that survey was concluded and that a detailed report would be made available "soon". Thereafter, a fresh notice was issued by the 3rd respondent on 14.10.2021, purportedly based on the alleged inspection by the 4th respondent said to have been conducted on 22.07.2021 calling petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken for the quantity of 11,21,678.5 Metric Tons. It may be relevant to note that there is no reference of ETS Survey done on 24.09.2021, in all probability as the report was not made ready till then. In any event, petitioner had requested the 3rd respondent to furnish details of the report together with calculation sheet so as to get an opportunity to refute the report pursuant to the survey dated 22.07.2021, vide petitioner's letter dated 26.11.2021, while also reminding the 3rd respondent about ETS Report in 2019. Undeterred, the 4th respondent vide letter dated 01.12.2021 furnished an alleged inspection report in reply to petitioner's request. Petitioner company vide letter dated 31.12.2021 submitted a reply to the show cause notice reiterating the contentions taken by petitioner in its explanation dated 21.09.2021 mentioned above, while also contending that the alleged inspection conducted on 22.07.2021 was one that was 6 conducted without their knowledge or presence. However, to the surprise of petitioner and its officers, the 3rd respondent issued yet another notice dated 13.01.2022 revising the quantity of Lime Stone in discrepancy from 11,21,678.5 to 16,32,028.205 Metric Tons allegedly relying on the report of TRAC and ETS survey conducted on 24.09.2021. Petitioner addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent on 29.01.2022 requesting copies of ETS Survey Report and further time for submitting explanation after studying the said report. The 4th respondent vide letter dated 04.02.2022 furnished a copy of the inspection report alleged to have been conducted by him on 22.07.2021 and copy of the report of the ETS survey conducted by TRAC on 24.09.2021 along with Panchanama and statement of petitioner's Senior Mines Manager as evidence. Further it is stated that a bare perusal of ETS report would show that ground and bottom levels of the entire pit under two benches were said to have been recorded at an interval of every 10 meters. This, by itself, is an impossibility as even on 24.09.2021, the entire pits were water- logged and therefore, making it impossible to accurately record the levels of the bottom of the benches. Further, to the shock of petitioner, survey report by TRAC reflects that they obtained 1,116 readings at an interval of every 10 meters which action is physically-impossible as to obtain so many readings it would take a minimum of 4 to 5 days. Each reading would require at 7 least 4 to 5 minutes of time as it involves movement of Prisms, equipment and personnel. In any event, the bottom levels of the pits cannot be recorded when the pits were inundated with rainwater. Finally, it is stated that petitioner had specifically taken all the above contentions vide letter dated 09.03.2022, submitted in reply to the show cause notice dated 13.01.2022 taking the following specific grounds:
i) The bottom levels mentioned in the ETS Survey Report would necessarily be concluded as hypothetical, as the mine was inundated with rain water, which fact can be confirmed by the Panchanama itself.
ii) The resolutions at intervals of 10 meters also was not possible and the conclusions are contradiction to the data being recorded for submission of statutory details to the Indian Bureau of Mines only in Form H-8.
iii) It was an absurdity to state that levels were recorded over the entire leased area of 42.82 Hectares with a frequency of 10 meters in one single day and that therefore the report could not be factual. The alleged inspection dt. 22.07.2021 said to have been conducted by the 3a Respondent had reported that the average height of the first bench to be 5.5 meters while that of the second bench to be 4.2 meters only in contrast with the ETS survey report where both the benches have shown as height of 7.5 meters. This contradiction alone would amount to a variance of 37% in case of the first bench and 44% in case of the second bench which it is again a physical impossibility particularly during monsoon period and that when the mine was water logged.
However, according to petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned demand notice casually brushing aside the contentions put forth by petitioner, by peculiarly taking a view 8 that since ETS survey was conducted in the presence of the officers of petitioner, it is deemed that the entire procedure is valid, therefore, it is not open for petitioner to contend that ETS measurements are erroneous. All the other contentions put forth have been causally ignored and not even referred to, as such, the impugned demand notice is liable to be quashed.
3. The case of the 4th respondent is that M/s NCL Industries Cements Limited had three Mining leases for Limestone granted by the Government, details of which are:
Sl.No Name of Location Extent Minera Period Period . the Lease in l from upto Holder Hects 01 M/s. NCL Sy.No.540 42.82 Lime 29.10.199 28.10.204 Industrie of Stone 6 6 s Ltd Pedaveedu Village, Mattampall y Mandal.
02 M/s. NCL Sy.No.63 & 130.3 Lime 22.10.199 21.10.204 Industrie 170/P 8 Stone 0 0 s Ltd Gundlapall y Village Mattampall y Mandal. 03 M/s. NCL Sy.No.88 46.35 Lime 14.10.198 13.10.203 Industrie Comp.No.1 6 Stone 0 0 s Ltd 4 of Sulthanpur RF, Mattampall y Mandal
It is further stated that the office technical staff conducted inspection on the mining lease area of M/s NCL Industries Limited in Survey No. 540 of Peddaveedu Village Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District over an extent of 42.82 9 Hectars on 22.07.2021 and duly obtained manual average measurements and submitted report. As per the report, M/s NCL Industries Limited had opened one huge pit within the leased area with developed two benches in which one bench average height is 5.5Mts and another one average height is 4.2 Mts. It is further observed, the 2nd bench is partly under waterlogged condition. As per the measurements of two Benches (up to water logged condition), total quantity is 4,74,3753 +1,44,236.4M3 =6,18,611.4M3. The total quantity of Limestone in MT is worked by taking specific gravity of Limestone as 2.5 (As per Mining Plan). Therefore the Tonnage value is 6,18,611.4M3 X 2.5 = 15,46,528.5 MT. As per the records, the lessee had obtained total permit for a quantity of 4,24,350 MT of Limestone, but the lease-holder had excavated and dispatched more than the permitted quantity. The details are as follows.
Bench-1 Qty Bench-2 Qty in Total Limestone Qty Permitted Stock Difference Qty MT excavated Qty in MT at Pit in MT head (A) (B) A-(B+C) (C) 4,74,375M3 1,44,236.4M3 6,18,611.4M3 Or Or Or 4,24,350 MT 500 11,21,678.5 MT MT 11,85,937.5MT 3,60,591MT 15,46,528.5MT It is stated that subsequently, the office vide letter dated 31.08.2021 requested the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad to take necessary action against the lease holder M/s NCL Industries Ltd. for realization of Royalty along 10 with sale price of mineral on the excess quantity 11,21,678.5 MT of Limestone extracted and dispatched more than permitted quantity as per Section 21(5) of the 1957 Act. It is further stated that the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad issued show cause Notice dated 14.10.2021 to petitioner to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why action should not be taken for realization of Royalty along with other statutory charges on the difference quantity 11,21,678.5MT of Limestone extracted, dispatched and consumed more than permitted quantity as stipulated under Section 21(5). The royalty for Limestone as per schedule rates is Rs.80/- per MT and the sale price of Limestone as per IBM monthly report is Rs.485/- per MT.
Total Qty Permits Difference Rate of Price of DMF (30% NMET IT(2% on Total in MT upto obtaine Qty in MT Royalty Mineral on Royalty) Royalty) Amount in 22.7.2021 d in MT Rs.
upto (2% on
(includi (Rs.80/MT) (Rs.485/MT) Royalty)
ng stock
at pit
head)
22.7.20
21
15,46,5 4,24,8 11,21,6 8,97,34, 54,40,14, 2,69,20, 17,94, 17,94, 66,42,58,
28.5 50 78.5 280 073 284 686 686 009
It is stated that petitioner vide letter dated
01.11.2021 requested the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology time to submit reply by 31.12.2021 and not to initiate any further proceedings until receipt and review of response on the show cause notice. It is further stated that the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Nalgonda Unit issued telephonic instructions on 09.08.2021 directing this office to 11 conduct joint survey and inspection of M/s NCL Industries Limited for three mining leases 1) Survey No. 540 of Pedaveedu Village, 2) Survey No. 63 & 170/P of Gundlapally Village and 3) Survey No. 88 Comp.No.14 of Mattapally Village, Sulthanpur R.F of Mattampally Mandal. Based on the said instructions, the office requested M/s Telangana State Remote Sensing Applications Centre, Hyderabad to conduct detailed survey for the above mentioned mining leases and submit detailed ETS report, so as to submit report for further necessary action in the matter. Further, it is stated that M/s Telangana State Remote Sensing Applications Centre, Hyderabad conducted ETS Survey for the mining lease for the three mining leases held by M/s NCL Industries Limited along with technical staff and Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officials, Nalgonda Unit and in the presence of officials of M/s NCL Industries Limited on 24.09.2021 and submitted report as follows. I. Sy No. 540 of Pedaveedu village Mattampally Mandal Over an extent of 42.82Hects.
Sl.No. Name of Location As per the Permits Differential Remarks
Lessee ETS Report obtained Quantity in
the Total in MT upto MT
Volume in MT ETS
upto Survey
23.8.2021
01 M/s. NCL Sy.No.540 of 20,66,378.205 4,34,350 (-) Shortfall
Industries Pedaveedu (Upto ETS of
Limited Village, Survey Royalty
16,32,028.205
Mattampally 24.9.2021)
Mandal.
It is further stated that as per the report, out of three mining leases in SI.No. 02 and 03 at Para No.3, total 12 excavation of pits are covered by Royalty and Sl.No.01 in Survey No. 540 of Pedaveedu Village over an extent of 42.82 Hectares is found extracted and dispatched more than permitted quantity. The office has already initiated action for a quantity of 11,21,678.5 MT of Limestone under Sections 21(5) and 9(1) of the Act. In this connection, it is stated that the office technical staff conducted inspection with manual process only by tape measurement method and in addition to this reason, there was two more months gap between manual method (22.07.2021) and ETS Survey (24.09.2021). Hence, the difference quantity 5,10,349.705MT is arrived, the details as mentioned below. As per ETC Permit Qty in Difference Qty in Already action Balance to be Report Qty in MT MT (Upto MT initiated and action proposed 24.9.2021) Show Cause Qty in MT Notice issued Qty (A) (B) (C) (A-B) (A-B)-(C) 20,66,378.205 4,34,350 16,32,028.205 11,21,678.5MT 5,10,349.705 As per ETS Survey report, excess extracted and dispatched quantity against permitted quantity of Limestone is 5,10,349.705MT, hence action is proposed. Accordingly, at the request of this office, the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad issued notice to M/s NCL Industries Ltd. dated 13.01.2022 show cause as to why action should not be taken for collection of evaded royalty along with other statutory charges under Section 21(5) of the Act , for which the leaseholder submitted explanation on 09.03.2022, wherein it is 13 stated that ETS Survey was not done properly as the said survey report shows the ground and bottom level with an interval of 10 mts. of covering entire pit having two benches, the bottom levels mentioned in the drawing appears to be more hypothetical rather than the actual for the reason that there is a difference in height between ADM&G and ETS Survey reports. Further, M/s NCL Industries Ltd. requested to drop further action in this regard. The explanation was considered by the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad and panchanama dated 24.09.2021 discloses that the representative of M/s NCL Industries Ltd. Sri A.Mahipal Reddy, Senior Manager was present during the entire procedure of survey, measurements were recorded in his presence, thus, the ETS measurements were recorded without any error and there are no deviations in levels etc. and finally concluded that M/s NCL Industries Ltd. is liable for necessary action as per Section 21(5) of the Act. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad issued demand notice dated 17.03.2022 to M/s NCL Industries Ltd for payment of required amounts on the differential quantity 16,32,028.205 MT of Limestone within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same, failing which necessary action would be initiated under RR Act, 1890 and Mining lease would be cancelled as per Rule 12(10) of M.C Rules, 2015. Lastly, it was stated that as per the orders of this 14 Court, M/s NCL Industries Limited paid 20% of the demanded amount i.e., Rs. 18,28,53,244/- through treasury challan No.6200336121 Dt.28.04.2022 at SBI Suryapet and further requested the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad for 3rd party survey in the demand notice issued Mining Lease area which is under process soon after completion of survey, the department would take further action in accordance with law.
4. The 5th respondent filed the counter-affidavit stating that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned demand notice dated 17.3.2022 and the petitioner without any valid or substantial grounds by-passing the procedure contemplated under Section 30 of the Act filed the present Writ Petition. Further, it is stated that petitioner was granted mining lease for limestone and was indulging in illegal mining operations and consumption of excess Limestone without payment of Royalty thereby causing huge loss of revenue to the Government exchequer. The 5th respondent is stated to have made written complaints to the authorities and in response, inspection of mining lease area of petitioner had taken place and reported that leaseholder excavated and dispatched limestone more than the permitted quantity and finally submitted proposals for realization of Royalty including sale price thereof along with other charges from petitioner for the differential quantity. It 15 was also stated that petitioner by suppressing the material facts obtained Environment Clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (Impact Assessment Division), Govt. of India by misrepresentation and as per the clearance certificates, it was revealed that production of limestone was expanded from 0.5 to 1.0 MPTA and further there is no mention about pendency of the Writ Petition, which clearly goes to show their mala fide intention. Hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition with exemplary costs.
5. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri Sivaraj Srinivas on behalf of petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology and Sri S. Srinivasa Chary, learned counsel for the 5th respondent.
6. After hearing learned counsel on either side and on perusing the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is 'Whether the impugned demand notice is just and proper and can be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. In the circumstances narrated above, it is necessary to see the scope of this Court in interfering with the matters where there is efficacious alternative remedy available to the parties:
16
8. The Supreme Court in PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank 1 reiterated and approved the ratio laid down in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon 2 in paragraph 29, it was held as under:
" 29. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus:
(i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question;
(ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure;
(iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and
(iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice."
9. In the light of the above settled position of law, it is to be seen whether this Writ Petition filed challenging the impugned order would fall under any of the exceptions carved out as stated supra. Before proceeding further, it is imperative to extract the interim order granted by this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2022 on 06.04.2022 ". .........Considering the rival contentions of both the parties and the ETS survey conducted by TRAC during 2019-20 concluded that there was no discrepancy in the quantities of mineral excavated from the dispatch permits issued till then and also considering the lacunas pointed out by the petitioner in the ETS survey conducted by TRAC on 24.09.2021 contending that as per the survey report itself, pits were water logged, as such, it was impossible to accurately / record the levels of bottom of the benches and that the survey report would reflect that they obtained 1,116 readings at an interval of every 10 meters, which was physically impossible, to obtain so many readings it would take a 1 2024 SCC Online SC 528 2 (2010) 8 SCC 110 17 minimum of 4 to 5 days and each reading would require 4 to 5 minutes of time as it involves, movement of prisms, equipment and personnel, the bottom levels of pits could not be recorded as the pits were inundated with rain water, as such, the bottom levels mentioned in the ETS survey report were hypothetical, as confirmed by the_panchanama, the inspection report dated 22.07.2021 reported the average height of the first bench to be 5.5 meters and the second bench as 4.2 meters in contrast with ETS survey report, where both the benches were shown to be at a height of 7.5 meters, the said contradiction alone would bring a variance of 37% in case of first bench and 44% in case of second bench and no corroborative material was filed to show that huge quantities had been extracted, transported and dispatched, and the said aspects require a detailed consideration, it is considered fit to suspend the demand notice dated 17.03.2022 conditionally.
Accordingly, the demand notice dated 17.03.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent is suspended on condition of the petitioner paying 20% of the demanded amount of Rs.91,42,66,220l/- within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner can request for a third party survey and can make an application before the Director of Mines and Geology to issue dispatch permits in accordance with law on compliance of the above said condition."
10. However, petitioner carried the said order in Writ Appeal No. 254 of 2022 and the Division Bench vide order dated 13.04.2022 dismissed the same with the observation as under:
"..........Though there is a remedy of filing a revision before the Central Government under Section 30 of the Act, the appellant has rushed to this Court without availing the alternative remedy. The order in the present case has been passed by an authority competent to do so. Meaning thereby, there is no jurisdictional error in the matter. However, as the writ petition was preferred before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge has granted an interim order on condition of the appellant paying 20% of the demanded amount keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.18
This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and is not 3 commenting upon the merits of the case, as the matter is still pending before the learned Single Judge.
Resultantly, the admission is declined and the writ appeal is dismissed..................."
11. It appears, pursuant to the interim directions dated 06.04.2022, petitioner made payment of 20% of the demanded amount and to that effect, the 4th respondent in his counter acknowledged the same and further there is also a request from petitioner to conduct 3rd party survey in terms of the interim order. From the perusal of the material documents, it divulges that show cause notice dated 14.10.2021 was issued by the 3rd respondent to petitioner for detection of dispatch of Limestone in excess than the permitted quantity without payment of Royalty for difference quantity for which petitioner sought time on 8.11.2021 to file reply on or before 30.11.2021 and thereafter, petitioner sought for details of reports together with calculations sheets of depth levels recorded during the inspection conducted by the 4th respondent on 22.07.2021 through their letter dated 26.11.2021. Vide letter dated 01.12.2021, the 4th respondent furnished the detailed report to petitioner, however, finally, petitioner filed reply on 31.12.2021 on the ground that notice that was issued in 2019 with similar allegations had been put to rest by the proceedings issued by 19 the 3rd respondent in Memo dated 02.12.2019 dropping all further proceedings in the matter and again, within a span of two years as to how the 4th respondent could come to a conclusion that such a huge and unimaginable quantity of limestone could be dispatched. In the meantime, a revised show cause notice dated 13.1.2022 was issued to petitioner sand at their request, the 4th respondent once again vide letter dated 04.02.2022 furnished detailed working calculation sheets of M/s TRAC Agency and Survey and Inspection reports.
12. The most pertinent aspect in this case is when ETS survey was conducted, panchnama was also drawn on 24.09.2021 and in the said panchnama, it was clearly mentioned that representatives of M/s NCL Industries i.e. Sri A. Mahipal Reddy, Senior Manager was very much present along with other officials and also the 5th respondent who is the complainant before the 4th respondent. Viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that ETS survey was conducted behind the back of petitioner and the said fact is also clearly observed in the impugned order by the 3rd respondent. This Court finds that petitioner could not satisfy as to how his case would fall under the exceptions carved out in PHR Invent Educational Society's case, as such the impugned demand notice cannot be interfered by this Court.
20
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Tondon's case, while deciding the question of interference of High Court under writ jurisdiction when an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available, held as under:
" Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions....
It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing applications, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance".
14. The law on the legal position i.e. 'Writ Petition is not maintainable if the aggrieved person is having an effective alternative remedy' is settled in plethora of cases. In view of the above settled legal position, against the impugned demand notice dated 17.3.2022 itself, since remedy of Revision is provided to petitioner under Section 30 of the Act to the Revisional Authority i.e. Central Government and since petitioner, without exhausting the said remedy, filed this Writ Petition, though both the parties have made averments and counter-averments, this Court is not inclined to go into merits of the same. When an efficacious and alternative remedy of 21 Revision is available to petitioner, it is not appropriate for this Court to entertain the Writ Petition invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
15. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to petitioner to avail statutory remedy. It shall also be open to both the parties to raise all the contentions which are sought to be canvassed in this Writ Petition before the Revisional authority. No costs.
16. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 06th September 2024 ksld