BABURAM PRAKASH CHANDRA MAHESHWARI Vs. ANTARIM ZILA PARISHAD NOW ZILA PARISHAD MUZAFFAMAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a partnership firm consisting of two brothers Lala Baburam and Shri Prakash Chandra, carrying on the business of manufacturing Khandsari sugar in the district of Muzaffarnagar. The partnership firm carries on its business through its two units (1) one located in the village Basora and run under the name and style of M/s. Baburam Ashok Kumar and (2) the other located in village Morna and run under the name and style of M/s. Baburam Prakash Chandra, both in the district of Muzaffarnagar. The case of the appellant was that the business of manufacturing Khandsari was seasonal and was carried on at both the places for less than 5 months in a year, i.e., from the month of November to the beginning of April. Under the U.P. District Boards Act No. X of 1922, the District Board of Muzaffarnagar was empowered to levy tax under Sections 108 and 114 in the rural area. Section 114 was to the following effect:

(2.) The sole argument presented on behalf of the appellant is that the High court was in error in holding that an appeal under the U. P. District Boards Act No. X of 1922 was an adequate and efficacious remedy and that the appellant should have exhausted the statutory remedy before applying for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) It is a well-established proposition of law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant he should be required to pursue that remedy and not to invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of a statutory remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ. But, as observed by this Court in Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, 1950 SCR 566 = (AIR 1950 SC 163), "the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs" and where such a remedy exists it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a writ petition unless there are good grounds therefor. But it should be remembered that the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies before a writ is granted is a rule of self-imposed limitation, a rule of policy, and discretion rather than a rule of law and the Court may therefore in exceptional cases issue a writ such as a writ of certiorari notwithstanding the fact that the statutory remedies have not been exhausted. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 SCR 595 605 = (AIR 1958 SC 86, 93), S. R. Das, C. J., speaking for the Court, observed: