[2008] 7 S.C.R. 1025
RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
A
V.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7337 of 2002)
MAY 7, 2008
B
A
-..!.
(H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.)
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 226 r/w Article 136 - Dismissal of writ petition by
High Court solely on the ground of availability of alternative c
remedy - HELD: Availability of alternative remedy is not an
absolute bar for granting relief in exercise of power under
Article 226 - The Union of India having clearly admitted the
liability, the High court ought not to have relegated the writ
petitioner to his alternative remedy before the Railway Claims D
i
Tribunal and shoulrl not have dismissed the writ petition on
that count- There is no disputed question of fact in the case -
Impugned order of the High Court is set aside - Respondents
are directed to pay the admitted liability along with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. as mentioned in the order.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCTION : Civil Appeal No.
7337 of 2002.
From the Judgment & Order dated 2.3.2001 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 1123/1997.
F
""'
1-
Ramesh P. Bhatt, Duttatray Vyas, Mahima C. Shroff and
Chirag M. Shroff for the Appellant.
K. Amereswari, Sunil Roy and Anil Katiyar for the
Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered :
G
.~
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 02/03/2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.1123 of 1997 whereby the
1025
H
1026
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2008] 7 S.C.R.
A
Division Bench dismissed the writ petition of the appellant solely
on the ground that alternative remedy being available the
appellant must resort to the alternative remedy.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
B
By now it is a well settled principle of law that availability of
~
alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for granting relief in
>
exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In the present case between 4th March, 1992 and 31st
c
December, 1992 the appellant had booked rakes for carrying
coal to Gurla. A sum of Rs.3,56,69,671/- which had been
collected from the appellant over a period of time by mistake.
That the mistake has been committed is admitted by the
respondent herein and it has duly been noted by the High Court.
However, the High Court, in our view, erroneously rejected the
D claim on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. On the
aforesaid premises the High Court dismissed the writ petition
~
with the direction to the appellant to approach the Railway Claims
Tribunal for alternative remedy provided under Section 13 of
The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter the 'Act').
E
We are clearly of the view that as the respondent-Union of
India has clearly admitted the liability, the High court ought not
to have relegated the appellant to his alternative remedy and
should not have dismissed the writ petition on that count. There
F
is no disputed question of fact in this case. As already noted, in
the present case the respondent had admitted its liability and,
~ "
therefore, the question raised before the High Court being an
admitted fact the High Court ought not to have directed the
appellant to resort to its alternative remedy under the Act.
G
In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned
order of the High Court. This appeal is allowed. No costs. The
respondents are directed to pay the admitted liability along with
~.
intere$t at the rate of 6% p.a. with effect from 5th January, 1993
till payment is made within three months from today.
H R.P.
Appeal allowed.
Lex