RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: H. K. Sema
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2008-05-07
Court Decision / Holding: Impugned order set aside; appeal allowed; respondents directed to pay admitted liability with 6% interest per annum from 5 January 1993 until payment, within three months.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed. No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

Respondents

Union of India
Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ramesh P. Bhatt
• Duttatray Vyas
• Mahima C. Shroff
• Chirag M. Shroff

Counsels for Respondents

• K. Amereswari
• Sunil Roy
• Anil Katiyar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Appeal arises from a writ petition challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (appellant) contends that the Bombay High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground that an alternate remedy existed under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (Section 13). The dispute centers on a sum of Rs 3,56,69,671, which was collected from the appellant by mistake during the period March–December 1992 while booking rakes to transport coal to Gurla. The respondent Union of India admits liability for the erroneous collection, a fact acknowledged in the record before the High Court. However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the appellant to seek relief from the Railway Claims Tribunal, treating the availability of an alternate remedy as a bar to writ relief. The Supreme Court held that such availability is not an absolute bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction when liability is admitted and there is no genuine dispute of fact. It emphasized that, where liability is admitted, relegating the petitioner to the Tribunal is improper. The impugned order was set aside, the appeal allowed, and the respondents were directed to pay the admitted liability with interest at 6% per annum from 5 January 1993 until payment, within three months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 read with Article 136Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, Section 13

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction under Article 226

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that since the respondent-union admitted liability and there is no controverted question of fact, the High Court should not have relegated the petitioner to the Railway Claims Tribunal. Availability of the alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to Article 226 relief, and the writ petition should be entertained to grant relief and recover the admitted amount with appropriate interest.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued for emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act (Section 13) and that the matter ought to be adjudicated there, consistent with the statutory remedy; the High Court’s decision to direct the petitioner to pursue the Tribunal route should stand.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_A_ -..!. _1-_ # [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 B # **(H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.)** _Constitution of India, 1950:_ _i_ _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 _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 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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1026 (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. 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. B 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 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. F 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. _>_ ~ ~ ~.