IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4320 of 2008 MD.MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN, son of Md.Salim, resident of Uttari Simaria, P.S. Korha, District Katihar--------------------petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Secretary, Supply Department, Govt. of Bihar Patna 3.District Magistrate, Katihar 4.District Supply Officer, Katihar 5.Sub Divisional Officer, Katihar--respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Pramod Kumar For the State : Mr.Mayank Rukhaiyar,A.C.to G.A.5. ----- 5. 5.3.2009 Heard learned counsels for the parties. Learned counsel for the State takes the stand that the order under challenge is appealable. The said contention of learned counsel for the State is not denied by learned counsel for the petitioner but it is submitted in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Prema Nath Singh vs. The State of Bihar and others: 1992(1) PLJR 678, that since the matter has been entertained for consideration on merit hence it cannot be rejected at a subsequent stage on the ground that statutory remedy was not availed of. From a consideration of the observation of this Court in paragraph-8 of the aforesaid 2 judgment it appears that in that case the matter was heard on successive dates and only at the stage of final hearing the plea of alternative remedy was raised. In the present matter the facts do not stand on the same footing. After filing of the writ application when the matter was first taken up, on the prayer of the learned counsel for the State the matter was adjourned for filing counter affidavit. On the next date learned counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment to consider the counter affidavit and file rejoinder thereto and thereafter the matter has come up for hearing in admission matter and plea of alternative remedy is raised. It cannot thus be said that the matter was heard on successive dates and the plea of alternative remedy has been raised at the last stage. Only when the State filed counter affidavit the issue has been addressed before this Court by them. In that situation it cannot be said that at the last moment such plea is being raised. At the very outset when learned counsel for the petitioner started to 3 argue the matter the issue was raised by learned counsel for the State. In the said circumstances, the present matter is not governed by what has been laid down in Prema Nath Singh’s case (supra). There being an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this Court does not consider it fit to entertain the present writ application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to move before the competent appellate authority. In case such an appeal is filed along with an application for condonation of delay by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today then the appellate authority shall consider the fact that the petitioner has been pursuing the remedy before this Court by filing the writ application. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/