MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the Rules made thereunder. It is contended in the petition that the petitioner had stood guarantee in favour of Kanhaiya Lal Puran Chand for the Dausa shop of country liquor for the year 1982-83. The said guarantee was executed in favour of the District Excise Officer (Recovery) Jaipur City, Jaipur i. e. respondent No. 2 herem. THIS guarantee was in respect of contract of liquor awarded in favour of Kanhaiya Lal Puran Chand for the period referred to above and for the amount of Rs. 54,908. 59. Notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 for recovery of the aforesaid amount. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has since been deposited by the petitioner with the respondents and hence the outstanding amount which is due as on date is Rs. 4,908. 59 and the sale proclamation issued against the petitioner by respondent No. 2 is thus confined only to the recovery of the said amount along with interest.
(2.) AGAINST the recovery of the aforesaid amount, the petitioner made a representation with the respondents. On 9. 7. 84 respondent No. 2 had issued the aforesaid proclamation of sale under Sections 230-235-237 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') to the petitioner/defaulter in respect of the amount due to the Excise Department including the expenses incurred on attachment and sale as per the schedule of property annexed there with. The sale was notified to be held on 30. 7. 84 between 10 A. M. to 5 P. M. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had nothing to do with the shops in question and that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount due to the respondents for the contract year 1982-83 and hence, the notice served on the petitioner was illegal. The petitioner had filed the representations with the respondents against the recovery notice dated 9. 7. 84 with respect to the sale of the petitioner's property. In the said representations the petitioner had contended that she was neither a licencee nor surety with respect to any of the shops indicated in the notice and that the notice was unjustified and deserves to be cancelled. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition by controverting the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and have reiterated their demand for the outstanding amount as referred to above. A perusal of the reply reveals that the petitioner had stood as a guarantor for one of the licencees for the year 1982-83 for the Dausa shop for a sum of Rs. 54,908. 59. Out of the said amount, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the account and, therefore a sum of Rs. 4,908. 59 remains only due to be paid to the respondents. The respondents have not disputed the receipt of representations from the petitioner but that in any case has nothing to do with the payment of the outstanding amount due to the Department. A reference may be made to the provisions of the Act, more particularly, Section 9-A of the Act. Under the said provision, the petitioner could have filed an appeal to the Excise Commissioner against the order of respondent No. 2. Apart from that, the petitioner could also have taken recourse to the procedure provided under Section 257-B of the Act. Hence, without exhausting the alternative remedies which were available to the petitioner, as referred to above, the petitioner had straight-away rushed to this court by filing the present writ petition. It is the settled law that where an alternative remedy is available to a party under the ordinary law of the land, it is not enjoined upon the applicant to straight-away avail the remedy of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution pf India without exhausting the said alternative remedies available to her. Hence, even on merits the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves dismissal. Moreover, the petitioner having already acknowledged its liability by standing as a guarantor towards successful performance of the guarantee, had accepted the responsibility towards the Excise Department in the event of any default committed by the licencee. The respondents are, therefore, fully justified in their stand for realising the amount outstanding as referred to above. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to deposit the remaining outstanding amount of Rs. 4,908. 59 with the respondents within a period of eight weeks from today with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from due date till the date of actual payment. The impugned order dated 9. 7. 84 regarding proclamation and sale of petitioner's property passed by respondent No. 2, is quashed and set aside. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of with no order as the costs. . ;