Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Mr. N. Joshi, learned additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has sought to meet the argument as follows:- According to Mr. N. Joshi, learned counsel, the impugned order itself says that person aggrieved by the order may appeal against the same to the appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras- 34. Therefore the petitioner should not be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of their court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In other word the availability of a statutory remedy not having been exhausted, the writ petition is not main table. I am afraid that this contention cannot be countenanced on the alternative amount to mockery of justice. It has been held that the existence of an alternative remedy is no ground for re3fusing the relief of writ of sorcerer where it appears on the face of the proceedings or on undisputed facts that the authority had acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. Similarly, the pendency of the proceedings for several years should also be taken into consideration at the time of final disposal of the case, as to whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory alternative remedy. There are several decisions on this aspect also. In P. K. Mutrhuvelappa Goundar v. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Combatore and Others (1960 (ii) M. L. J. 392). It is hels as follows:-