CWP No.2649 of 2008. 04.12.2008 Present: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Learned Advocate General raised an objection that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in State of Punjab and others v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd, (2007) 11 SCC 363 wherein after the delay of five years writ petition was entertained by the High Court instead of going to alternative remedy. Second judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned Counsel is Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, AIR 1999 SC 22. We are of the considered opinion that it is a decided question of law that the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar. Every case has to be tested on its own merits as far as the alternative remedy is concerned. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not show any reason that the grounds raised by him in the writ petition cannot be considered by the appellate authority. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. Since the impugned order -2- has no date, therefore, we feel that the limitation of filing the appeal starts from the date the petitioner received the same. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, so also all other pending applications. In case any appeal is filed with a request to expedite the same, the authority shall consider the same sympathetically. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. December 04, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (rc)