1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3157 OF 2008 Ravikumar Maniram Arya and another ..Petitioners. Vs. Chau Manglya Mhatre and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. C.J. Sawant, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.A. Gangal for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 6th May, 2008. P.C. : The Petitioners have challenged an order passed by the Tahsildar, Panvel on 29th March, 2008 in revenue proceedings. The grievance is that the order is contrary to the observations contained in the order of the Additional Collector, Raigad in his order dated 1st April, 2003. The order passed by the Tahsildar is appealable under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Hence, the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not warranted. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation v. Jahan Khan1. The judgment of the Supreme Court 1 AIR 2007 SC 3153. 2 reaffirms the principle that while in a given case the High Court may not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy, but the said rule is not of universal application. The writ Court, may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction where the Petition seeks an enforcement of a fundamental right; where there is a failure of the principles of natural justice or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In the present case the petitioner is aggrieved by the merits of the determination made by the Tahsildar and there is no reason why the Petitioner should not exhaust the alternative remedy of an appeal. The learned counsel submitted that in the meantime the order of the Tahsildar should be stayed so as to enable the Petitioner to move the appellate authority. The Petitioner would be at liberty to move an application for stay of the operation of the order of the Tahsildar before the appellate authority and in the event that such an application is made, it shall be considered expeditiously. The Petition is dismissed.