- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is true that the petitioner had taken loan amount from the respondents, and the original claim of respondents was more than Rs. 4,26,000/ -. There are some financial constraints of the petitioner to make the payment of the loan and, therefore, the impugned order has been challenged, which is an order, passed by the Certificate Officer under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has submitted that now the dues have come about to Rs. 7,66,000/ -, which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents. The notice which has been issued by the Certificate Officer, Bokaro, is under Section 6 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, which is an appealable order under Section 60 of the said Act before the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district and, therefore, efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner and, therefore, this Court may not entertain this writ petition and exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially, that the impugned order at Annexure -1, passed by the Certificate Officer. Bokaro, under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act is an appealable one under Section 60 of the said Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro.
(3.) IN view of these facts and as the efficacious alternative remedy being available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, without entering into the merits of the case, only on the aforesaid ground of availability of alternative remedy under Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, this writ petition is hereby, dismissed. Liberty is reserved with the petitioner to prefer appeal before the concerned authority under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914.;