HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 442 of 2009 (M/S) Mohd. Ali and others …. Petitioners .. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 24th March, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2008 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Haridwar Forest Division, Haridwar whereby the petitioners have been refused permission to fell trees. The petitioners have an alternative remedy under Section 6 (4) of the Protection of Trees in Rural and Hill Areas Act, 1976 to file a representation before the Revising Authority appointed by the State Government. Since there is an alternative remedy in the present case, writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. However, the petitioners, if so advised, may file representation under Section 6 (4) of the Protection of Trees in Rural and Hill Areas Act, 1976 (as it existed on the appointed date), before the Revising Authority. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 24.3.2009 Avneet 2