- (1.) Heard counsel for the Petitioner Shri S.P. Sharma. The Petitioner had submitted lay out plan before the Agra Development Authority, Agra. The aforesaid plan was rejected by order dated 21-1-91. The Petitioners feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid rejection came to this Court by means of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 2-12-92 dismissed the aforesaid petition on the ground that the Petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Chairman, Agra Development Authoriiy. It appears that after rejection of the aforesaid writ petition, Petitioners prefered an appeal before the Chairman, Agra Development Authority, which was rejected. Feeling disatisfied against the aforesaid order, Petitioner approached this Court again under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid petition was also dismissed summarily by a Division Bench on 15-3-93 on the ground that the Petitioners had an alternative remedy of preferring revision before the state government under Section 43 of the Act against the impugned order. The Petitioner instead of filing a revision before the state government has come again to this Court in the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that revision before the state government is not an alternative remedy. Once this Court rejected the petition of the Petitioner on the ground of alternative remedy, the remedy available to the Petitioner was to avail the said remedy and if he was not satisfied with the order passed by this Court, he should have preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order he could have filed a review petition, but he could not be permitted to file petition without complying with the order passed by this Court on 15-3-93. In our view if a petition is dismissed once on the ground of alternative remedy, then the Petitioner without exhausting that .alternative remedy cannot approach this Court again by means of another writ petition,
(2.) For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the present petition filed by the Petitioner is illadvised, misconceived, trot maintainable and deserves to be rejected. It is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable,;