- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment in the, case of Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1985 AIR(SC) 1147 and accordingly submitted that the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, and therefore, the learned Single Judge should have shown interference under extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred upon him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that even of the alternative remedy has been availed, the appellant has right to file the writ petition and in support of his submission, relies upon the relevant portion of paragraph 4 of the judgment in the case of Babu Ram Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Zila Parishad, 1969 AIR(SC) 556 which runs as under: ...In view of the allegations of the appellant that the taxing provisions are ultra vires and that there was violation of the principles of natural justice, we think that the High Court was in error in summarily dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had an alternative remedy of statutory appeal....;