bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1921 OF 2009 Minoo N.Bharucha ..Petitioner Vs. Tax Recovery Officer, Range 16(2) & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Jitendra Jain with Ms.S.Vedpathak i/b. Maneksha & Sethna for petitioner. Mr.Yogesh Patki i/b. P.S.Sahadevan for respondents. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER,2009 P.C. 1. Heard. Perused petition. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 8th July, 2009, which is clarified by the Revenue. 3. By way of clarification, the Revenue has filed an affidavit duly affirmed by the Tax Recovery Officer 16(2), Mumbai-400 007 stating therein that, the Department has only attached the tenancy rights pertaining to Flat No.22-A, Meher Apartment, Altamount Road, Mumbai – 400 026. The affidavit and the clarification made therein is taken on record. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Revenue has also raised a legal contention, contending that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available in view of Rule 11(6) of the Recovery Rules – Schedule-II of the Income Tax Act,1961 since the order is referable to Rule 11 of Chapter II of the Act. In this view of the matter, on the face of availability of the alternate remedy, we do not propose to entertain this petition, since the order challenged involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. In the result, petition is accordingly dismissed leaving rival contentions open on merits with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)