1 WP.965/2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 965 OF 2010 Hyundai Merchant Marine India Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay & Ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr. R.M. Nakhwa, i/b V.B. Dhavan, for the Petitioner. Ms. Shobha Anil Kumar, for the B.M.C. --- CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 25TH OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. Perused petition. Heard rival contentions. 2] Since the alternate remedy by way of substantive appeal is available to the petitioner under section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, we do not propose to entertain this petition at this stage in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the following cases: “In Punjab National Bank V O.C. Krishnan, (SCC P.570,para (6). The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the 2 WP.965/2010 Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act. 22. In State of H.P. V. Gujrat Ambuja Cement Ltd. this Court observed as under (SCC P.515 para 17) “17. We shall first deal with the plea regarding alternative remedy as raised by the appellant State. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of Policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction.” 3] The petitioner is relegated to the alternate remedy. All rival contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)