- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. Dhulia, Senior Counsel with Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for the re spondents. They are heard on admission.
(2.) THE petitioner Ravi Maheshwari has filed this writ petition for the follow ing reliefs : "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the impugned order dt. 9-1-2006, passed by Vice Chairman, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun-re spondent no. 2. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, com manding the respondent authori ties to sanction the map/plan no. 189 of 2003-2004, submitted, by the petitioner for construction over the open roof of first floor of property no. 3/4, Race Course, Dehradun. iii. pass any other and further or ders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner. " Mr. S. Dhulia, the learned Sen ior Counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of fil ing an appeal against the impugned order dated 09-01-2006 before the Divisional Commissioner, Garhwal Division. Mr. Kishore Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that such an alternative rem edy of filing an appeal against the impugned order is available to the petitioner.
(3.) IN the writ petition, it has not been shown as to how the statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order is not efficacious in the present case. In this view of the matter, we decline to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ peti tion, therefore, is liable to be dis missed summarily.;