3A HI6H COURT OF CHH/ITTES6ARH AT BILASPUR Sirgle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Jcgdish Bhalla. Ag Chief Justice Writ Petition fu No. 4798 of 2007 Petjttoner Respondents 1. M/s Knnker Roadways, A Partnership firm through Partner Shri Pritam Singh Sarcha, S/o L^rte Jogender Singh Sarcha, Aged ofcout 53 years. R/o Civil Lines, Raipur (C6) Versus State of Chhatt-isgarh Throu9h Secretary, Department of Transport, DKS Bhawan, ftaipur 2. Tax Officer & Assistont Troinsport Commissioner Chhattisgarh, Raipur Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Present: Shri BK ftawat, counsel for the petitioner. Shri VVS Murthy, Deputy Advoca-te Seneral for the State. CWtAL OR&ER (Passed on 14th August, 2007) Heard learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection of alternative remedy. Learned counset for the petitioner relies upon two jjdginents of Hon'bte Apex Court; first is, Whirlpwl Cwpwwtlwi Vs Regtstrar of Trade Marks. Mwnbai and others reported in (1998) 8 Supreme Cowt Cases 1, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court -pbserved that under Article226 of the Constitution the High Court -2- having regard to the facts of the case, hffls judicious discretion to entertain a petition in spite of the fact that there is an alternative remedy. However, the High Court has self-imposed restrictions whenever effective and efficacious remedy is available. Normally, the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercised although consistently the Ape^ Court has held that the alternatiye rerpedy does not operate as a bar, spscially in three contingencies, namely, where thewrit petition has been filed for the enforcemsnt of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a yiolation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an act is challenged. In the matter of LK Verma Vs HMT Umited and another - A 2006 Supreme Court 979, the aforesaid subject matter is considered in detail and various circumstances have been shown where the interference was directed by the Court, in spite of mailability of altemative remedy. It is admitted case of the parties that there is alternative remedy of filin9 the appeal. This Court finds that the appellate authority can even grant interim order, therefore, it ccn be said that the alternatiye remedy is efficocious. However, this Court hos further looked into the fact whether petitioner has alleged the violation of fundamental right. I find that no such plea has been raised by learned counse! for the petitioner. Secondly, petitioner 3 ^ has not alleged any yiolation of principles of natural justice. Further petitioner did not raise ony ground that the demond notice is without jurisdiction in light of the Apex Court judgments while examining the alternative remedy. I find after testing the three grounds available in the Supreme Court's judgments that there is an alternative remedy, efficacious in nature. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternaitive remedy. Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice paa-naf