RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                                    [2008] 7 S.C.R. 1025


                      RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD                          A
                                             V.
                                UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                            (Civil Appeal No. 7337 of 2002)

                                       MAY 7, 2008
  A                                                                              B
      -..!.         (H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.)

                   Constitution of India, 1950:
                      Article 226 r/w Article 136 - Dismissal of writ petition by
              High Court solely on the ground of availability of alternative c
              remedy - HELD: Availability of alternative remedy is not an
              absolute bar for granting relief in exercise of power under
              Article 226 - The Union of India having clearly admitted the
              liability, the High court ought not to have relegated the writ
              petitioner to his alternative remedy before the Railway Claims D
        i
              Tribunal and shoulrl not have dismissed the writ petition on
              that count- There is no disputed question of fact in the case -
              Impugned order of the High Court is set aside - Respondents
              are directed to pay the admitted liability along with interest at
              the rate of 6% p.a. as mentioned in the order.                      E
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCTION : Civil Appeal No.
              7337 of 2002.
                   From the Judgment & Order dated 2.3.2001 of the High
              Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 1123/1997.
                                                                                 F
        1-
""'                Ramesh P. Bhatt, Duttatray Vyas, Mahima C. Shroff and
              Chirag M. Shroff for the Appellant.
                  K. Amereswari, Sunil Roy and Anil Katiyar for the
              Respondents.
                                                                                 G
                   The Order of the Court was delivered :

      .~           This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
              dated 02/03/2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High
              Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.1123 of 1997 whereby the
                                           1025                                  H
    1026       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      (2008] 7 S.C.R.


A   Division Bench dismissed the writ petition of the appellant solely
    on the ground that alternative remedy being available the
    appellant must resort to the alternative remedy.

           Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

B         By now it is a well settled principle of law that availability of        ~

    alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for granting relief in          >
    exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
           In the present case between 4th March, 1992 and 31st
    December, 1992 the appellant had booked rakes for carrying
c   coal to Gurla. A sum of Rs.3,56,69,671/- which had been
    collected from the appellant over a period of time by mistake.
    That the mistake has been committed is admitted by the
    respondent herein and it has duly been noted by the High Court.
    However, the High Court, in our view, erroneously rejected the
D   claim on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. On the
    aforesaid premises the High Court dismissed the writ petition             ~
    with the direction to the appellant to approach the Railway Claims
    Tribunal for alternative remedy provided under Section 13 of
    The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter the 'Act').
E
          We are clearly of the view that as the respondent-Union of
    India has clearly admitted the liability, the High court ought not
    to have relegated the appellant to his alternative remedy and
    should not have dismissed the writ petition on that count. There
    is no disputed question of fact in this case. As already noted, in
F   the present case the respondent had admitted its liability and,           ~
    therefore, the question raised before the High Court being an
                                                                                   "
    admitted fact the High Court ought not to have directed the
    appellant to resort to its alternative remedy under the Act.

G          In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned
    order of the High Court. This appeal is allowed. No costs. The
    respondents are directed to pay the admitted liability along with
                                                                              ~.
    intere$t at the rate of 6% p.a. with effect from 5th January, 1993
    till payment is made within three months from today.
H   R.P.                                               Appeal allowed.