IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 290 of 2011 M/s Sagar Sons. ………. Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. ..………. Respondents Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) An order of assessment has been passed against the appellant. According to the appellant, the said order is an incorrect order, based on the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of some other assessee. It is the contention of the appellant that, in the event, appellant prefers an appeal, the appellate authority, being inferior to the Tribunal, would be required to follow the order of the Tribunal, passed in respect of another assessee, and, only thereafter, appellant will be having an opportunity to approach the Tribunal and, then again, the Tribunal will be bound by its own order and, only then, appellant will be entitled to come to the High Court to redress his grievance. In the meantime, appellant will suffer great prejudice for demand, on the basis of the wrong order, would be enforced against him. On this premise, he contends that the availability of alternative efficacious remedy cannot stand in the way of the appellant approaching the writ court to assail the assessment order. 2. We are of the view that, for the purpose of preserving judicial discipline, it is a requirement to exhaust, first, that remedy, which is available in the form of appeal, as provided in the Statute and then to approach the writ court. In other words, unless such remedy is completely exhausted, the writ court would not assume jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. Therefore, it is not permissible on the part of the writ court to 2 quash an assessment order, when there is a statutory right to prefer an appeal against an assessment order. 3. We, accordingly, find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative efficacious remedy. 4. Before parting, it is our duty to record that it is the contention of the appellant that, contrary to the judgment of the Tribunal relied by the assessing authority, there are judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with almost similar issues. If that be so, it shall be open to the appellant to take such recourse to law as he may be advised. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 21.12.2011 21.12.2011 G