1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.8394/2002 Chaturbhuj Vaishnav v/s State of Raj. & Anr. DATE OF ORDER ::: 15.5.2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Arvind Bhardwaj, for the petitioner. Shri Satish Purohit, Addl. Govt counsel. BY THE COURT : 1. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard finally and the writ petition is being disposed of. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 30.12.2000 passed by the District Collector (Land Revenue), Baran, whereby a penalty under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, has been imposed against the petitioner. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the State that the impugned order is appealable under rule 25 and thereafter there is a provision 2 for review also. Therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, without arguing the case on merits, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file statutory appeal under the rules of 1958, itself. However, he submits that a reasonable time may be allowed to the petitioner to prefer an appeal and if the same is preferred within time, then appellate authority may be directed to decide the same on merits without going into the objection regarding delay in filing the appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the State does not oppose the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner about grant of time and deciding the appeal on merits. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties. It is correct that the impugned order is appealable under the Rules of 1958 and it is a settled law that the writ petition before this court is normally not entertained unless an alternative remedy available to the petitioner is exhausted. 3 The prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner to allow him to withdraw the writ petition, appears to be reasonable and the same is also not opposed by the learned counsel for the State, hence, the prayer of petitioner is allowed. 7. Consequently, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority. It is directed that in case the appeal is preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order within a period of 30 days from today, then the appellate authority shall decide the appeal on merits. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. 8. Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application filed therewith, does not survive and the same also stands dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain), J. Chauhan/