State v. Rahbar), under section

: Chandan Srivastava, Vikas Srivastava : G.A. Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 18th July, 2024 passed by respondent no. 2 in Case No. 683 of 2024, Computerized Case No. D202413740000683 (State Vs. Rahbar), under section 14(1) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and directing the respondents to release the house of the father of the petitioner no. 3 i.e. Plot No. 1618 area 0.3480 hectare situated at village Sirsi in favour of petitioner no. 1.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that a case registered under section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social (Activities) Act, 1986 bearing Case Crime No. 142 of 2022, Police Station Hazarat Nagar Garhi, District Sambhal showing three persons in Gang-chart and petitioner no. 3 shown as Gang Leader. In the aforesaid case crime a report regarding earning of property through anti-social activities was submitted before the respondent no. 2, on the basis of said report the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 specifically stating therein that at the time of construction of house in question the age of Rahabar's father i.e. Razi Hasan, would have been over 65 years old. It is also evident from the photograph appended at the application that he appears to be infirm due to old age and is not capable to engage in any work or occupation and the evidences presented by the prosecution appears to be contrary to the actual facts. For ready reference the relevant portion of order impugned is quoted below:- "नोिटस की सूचना पर असकरी हसन की ओर से िदनांक 06.06.2024 व लारेव हसन (नाबािलग) संरिक्षका श्रीमती िरजवाना अंजुम पत्नी रहबर हसन की ओर से िदनाक 11.07.2024 को पृथक-पृथक प्राथर्ना-पत्र सहय सिहत प्रस्तुत िकये गये 2 CRLP No. 19256 of 2025 है। िवपक्षीगण / पैरवीकतार्गण द्वारा प्रस्तुत साक्ष्यों के अवलोकन से यह बात सही है िक कु कर् शुदा मकान का वािरस लारेव हसन है, जो नाबािलग है, कु छ भी कमाने की िस्थित में नहीं है और िजस प्रश्नगतः मकान का िनमार्ण हुआ होगा. उस समय रहबर के िपता रजी हसन की आयु 65 वषर् से अिधक रही होगी। अभ्यावेदन पर चस्पा फोटी से यह भी स्पष्ट है िक यह वृद्ध होने के कारण अक्षम प्रतीत होते हैं, जो काम- धन्धा करने हेतु सक्षम नहीं है। श्री रजी हसन द्वारा जो पैतृक भूिम िवक्रय की गयी है, उसकी कीमत लगभग 4,00.000/- रूपये िवलेख-पत्र में दशार्यी गयी है। इसके अितिरक श्री असकरी हसन पुत्र रजी हसन जो बी.एस.एफ. में एस.सी के पद पर कायर्रत रहे हैं. उनके द्वारा अपनी सेवाकाल में कभी-कभी कु छ धनरािश दी गयी है. जो पािरवािरक भरण-पोषण में भी व्यय हुई होगी। पुिलस आख्या में कु कर् शुदा मकान की कीमत 36,40,000/- रुपये सरकारी दर से मूल्यांिकत कर अंिकत की गयी है, जबिक उस मकान की बाजारू कीमत और अिधक होगी। उपरोक्त सनी साक्ष्यों से इस बात की पुिष्ट नहीं होती है िक मकान में प्रयुक्त की गयी धनरािश उपरोक्तानुसार पूणर् हुई होगी। दूसरा तथ्य यह है िक प्रश्नगत मकान का िवद्युत संयोजन रहबर हसन पुत्र श्री रजी हसन के नाम है। मकान पर लगी पिट्टका पर लारेव हसन पुत्र रहबर इसन का नाम अंिकत है, जबिक लारेव हसन स्वयं नाबािलग है। यह समस्त प्रयोजन मात्र कु कर् शुदा मकान को बचाने के उद्देश्य से तैयार कर प्रस्तुत िकये जा रहे है। वास्तिवकता यही है कु कर् शुदा मकान अिभयुक्त रहबर पुत्र रजी हसन द्वारा वषर् 2010 से लगातार िकये जा रहे असामािजक िक्रयाकलाप से अिजत सम्पित से तैयार िकया गया है। पैरवीकतांगण द्वारा प्रस्तुत साक्ष्य तथ्य असल तथ्यों के िवपरीत प्रतीत होते हैं।"

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that from mere perusal of the allegations made in the FIR of base case as well as FIR under section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and the same do not lay down any foundation to initiate legal proceedings under section 14(1) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. It is further submitted that the house in question was built by the father-in-law of the petitioner no. 1 from his own income and there is no relevant explanation given by the respondents for attaching the property of the petitioners except of the presumption that the same was financed by the respondent no. 3 or his alleged illegal proceeds. It is also submitted that the house in question does not belong to petitioner no. 3, it is lawfully registered in the name of petitioner no. 1 but the respondent no. 2 vide its order dated 18.07.2024 illegally attached the house owned by the father-in-law of the petitioner no. 1 only with the deliberate intention to harass the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 as they are the family members of the petitioner no. 3 who is an accused in the base case. It is further submitted that from bare perusal of FIR and the gang- chart, it is clear that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are not concerned in any manner with the aforesaid matter.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners vehemently submitted that the sole basis of the instant case has become null and void by virtue of the subsequent order passed by this Court in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 33388 of 2025 (Rahabar Vs. State of U.P. Another) as this Court by allowing the aforesaid application has quashed and set aside the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial no. 30 of 2023 in pursuance of Case Crime no. 142 of 3 CRLP No. 19256 of 2025 2022 under Section 3(1) of U.P.Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PS- Hazaratnagar Garhi, District Sambhal as well as charge sheet dated 18.12.2022 and cognizance order dated 02.05.2023 along with gang chart dated 04.07.2022 in respect of applicant. It is further submitted that in such a situation the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 has no legal sanctity.

5. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri S.K. Ojha, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State that the petitioners have alternative remedy to approach before the authority concerned challenging the order impugned passed by respondent no. 2 as itself mentioned in its operative portion, which is quoted herein below:- र्क्त िववेचना के आधार पर असकरी हसन द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्राथर्ना-पत्र िदनांक "उपयु 06.06.2024 व लारेव हसन (नाबािलग) संरिक्षका श्रीमती िरजवाना अंजुम पत्नी रहबर हसन की ओर से प्रस्तुत प्राथर्ना-पत्र िदनांिकत 11.07. 2024 असत्य कथानक पर आधािरत होने के फलस्वरूप एतद्द्वारा अस्वीकार िकये जाते हैं तथा स्थानीय पुिलस थाना-हजरतनगर गढ़ी, जनपद-सम्भल द्वारा प्रस्तुत आख्या िदनांक 05.02.2023 के आधार पर उत्तर प्रदेश िगरोहबन्द एवं समाज िवरोधी िक्रयाकलाप ( िनवारण) अिधिनयम-1986 की धारा-14 (1) के अन्तगर्त इस न्यायालय द्वारा पूवर् पािरत प्रारिम्भक आदेश िदनांक 03 माचर्, 2023 को यथावत् रखते हुए उपरोक्त गितमान वाद की कायर्वाही समाप्त की जाती है। पत्रावली तैयार कर (मूल बाद पत्रावली) मा. अपर िजला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश (िवशेष न्यायालय गैंगेस्टर एक्ट), सम्भल (िस्थत घन्दौसी) के न्यायालय को प्रेिषत हो। पत्रावली बाद अनुपालन अिभलेखागार में संिचत हो।"

6. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State further submitted that in order to appreciate the controversy in hand, it is relevant to extract the relevant sections of the Act, 1986, which are reads as follows:- "15. Release of property. - (1) Where any property is attached under Section 14, the claimant thereof may within three months from the date of knowledge of such attachment make a representation circumstances in and the sources by which such property was acquired by him. the District Magistrate showing (2) If the District Magistrate is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made under sub-section (1) he shall forthwith release the property from attachment and thereupon such property shall be made over to the claimant.

16. Inquiry into the character of acquisition of property by Court. - 1) Where no representation is made within the period specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15 or the District Magistrate does not release the property under sub-section (2) of Section 15 he shall refer the matter with his report to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under this Act. (2) Where the District Magistrate has refused to attach any property under sub-section (1) of Section 14 or has ordered for release of any property under sub-section (2) of Section 15, the State Government or any person aggrieved by such refusal or release may make an application to the Court referred to in sub- 4 CRLP No. 19256 of 2025 section (1) for inquiry as to whether the property was acquired by or as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act. Such Court may, if it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of justice so to do, order attachment of such property. (3)(a) On receipt of the reference under sub-section (1) or an application under sub-section (2), the Court shall fix a date for inquiry and give notices thereof to the person making the application under subsection (2) or, as the case may be, to the person making the representation under Section 15 and to the State Government, and also to any other person whose interest appears to be involved in the case. (b) On the date so fixed or any subsequent date to which the inquiry may be adjourned, the Court shall hear the parties, receive evidence produced by them, take such further evidence as it considers necessary, decide whether the property was acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act and shall pass such order under Section 17 as may be just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. (4) For the purpose of inquiry under sub-section (3) the Court, shall have the power of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely :- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office; (e) issuing commission for examination of witness or documents; (f) dismissing a reference for default or deciding it ex parte (g) setting aside an order of dismissal for default or ex parte decision. (5) In any proceedings under this section, the burden of proving that the property in question or any part thereof was not acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of any offence triable under this Act, shall be on the person claiming the property, anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), notwithstanding.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh And Others reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771. The relevant paragraphs are quoted as under:- "27. The principles of law which emerge are that :

27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other CRLP No. 19256 of 2025 5 purpose as well.

27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person.

27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.

27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law.

27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.

27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with."

8. In view of settled legal position, case at hand is not exceptional case to interfere by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

9. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, bare reading of the relevant Sections of the Act, 1986 as well as principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is apparent that the petitioners have got a efficacious alternative remedy provided by law for 6 CRLP No. 19256 of 2025 the redressal of their grievance.

10. In view of above, since the petitioners have got a statutory remedy available to them, we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy. (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) October 28, 2025 Arti

: Chandan Srivastava, Vikas Srivastava : G.A. Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 18th July, 2024 passed by respondent no. 2 in Case No. 683 of 2024, Computerized Case No. D202413740000683 (State Vs. Rahbar), under section 14(1) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and directing the respondents to release the house of the father of the petitioner no. 3 i.e. Plot No. 1618 area 0.3480 hectare situated at village Sirsi in favour of petitioner no. 1.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that a case registered under section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social (Activities) Act, 1986 bearing Case Crime No. 142 of 2022, Police Station Hazarat Nagar Garhi, District Sambhal showing three persons in Gang-chart and petitioner no. 3 shown as Gang Leader. In the aforesaid case crime a report regarding earning of property through anti-social activities was submitted before the respondent no. 2, on the basis of said report the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 specifically stating therein that at the time of construction of house in question the age of Rahabar's father i.e. Razi Hasan, would have been over 65 years old. It is also evident from the photograph appended at the application that he appears to be infirm due to old age and is not capable to engage in any work or occupation and the evidences presented by the prosecution appears to be contrary to the actual facts. For ready reference the relevant portion of order impugned is quoted below:- "नोिटस की सूचना पर असकरी हसन की ओर से िदनांक 06.06.2024 व लारेव हसन (नाबािलग) संरिक्षका श्रीमती िरजवाना अंजुम पत्नी रहबर हसन की ओर से िदनाक 11.07.2024 को पृथक-पृथक प्राथर्ना-पत्र सहय सिहत प्रस्तुत िकये गये 2 CRLP No. 19256 of 2025 है। िवपक्षीगण / पैरवीकतार्गण द्वारा प्रस्तुत साक्ष्यों के अवलोकन से यह बात सही है िक कु कर् शुदा मकान का वािरस लारेव हसन है, जो नाबािलग है, कु छ भी कमाने की िस्थित में नहीं है और िजस प्रश्नगतः मकान का िनमार्ण हुआ होगा. उस समय रहबर के िपता रजी हसन की आयु 65 वषर् से अिधक रही होगी। अभ्यावेदन पर चस्पा फोटी से यह भी स्पष्ट है िक यह वृद्ध होने के कारण अक्षम प्रतीत होते हैं, जो काम- धन्धा करने हेतु सक्षम नहीं है। श्री रजी हसन द्वारा जो पैतृक भूिम िवक्रय की गयी है, उसकी कीमत लगभग 4,00.000/- रूपये िवलेख-पत्र में दशार्यी गयी है। इसके अितिरक श्री असकरी हसन पुत्र रजी हसन जो बी.एस.एफ. में एस.सी के पद पर कायर्रत रहे हैं. उनके द्वारा अपनी सेवाकाल में कभी-कभी कु छ धनरािश दी गयी है. जो पािरवािरक भरण-पोषण में भी व्यय हुई होगी। पुिलस आख्या में कु कर् शुदा मकान की कीमत 36,40,000/- रुपये सरकारी दर से मूल्यांिकत कर अंिकत की गयी है, जबिक उस मकान की बाजारू कीमत और अिधक होगी। उपरोक्त सनी साक्ष्यों से इस बात की पुिष्ट नहीं होती है िक मकान में प्रयुक्त की गयी धनरािश उपरोक्तानुसार पूणर् हुई होगी। दूसरा तथ्य यह है िक प्रश्नगत मकान का िवद्युत संयोजन रहबर हसन पुत्र श्री रजी हसन के नाम है। मकान पर लगी पिट्टका पर लारेव हसन पुत्र रहबर इसन का नाम अंिकत है, जबिक लारेव हसन स्वयं नाबािलग है। यह समस्त प्रयोजन मात्र कु कर् शुदा मकान को बचाने के उद्देश्य से तैयार कर प्रस्तुत िकये जा रहे है। वास्तिवकता यही है कु कर् शुदा मकान अिभयुक्त रहबर पुत्र रजी हसन द्वारा वषर् 2010 से लगातार िकये जा रहे असामािजक िक्रयाकलाप से अिजत सम्पित से तैयार िकया गया है। पैरवीकतांगण द्वारा प्रस्तुत साक्ष्य तथ्य असल तथ्यों के िवपरीत प्रतीत होते हैं।"

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that from mere perusal of the allegations made in the FIR of base case as well as FIR under section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and the same do not lay down any foundation to initiate legal proceedings under section 14(1) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. It is further submitted that the house in question was built by the father-in-law of the petitioner no. 1 from his own income and there is no relevant explanation given by the respondents for attaching the property of the petitioners except of the presumption that the same was financed by the respondent no. 3 or his alleged illegal proceeds. It is also submitted that the house in question does not belong to petitioner no. 3, it is lawfully registered in the name of petitioner no. 1 but the respondent no. 2 vide its order dated 18.07.2024 illegally attached the house owned by the father-in-law of the petitioner no. 1 only with the deliberate intention to harass the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 as they are the family members of the petitioner no. 3 who is an accused in the base case. It is further submitted that from bare perusal of FIR and the gang- chart, it is clear that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are not concerned in any manner with the aforesaid matter.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners vehemently submitted that the sole basis of the instant case has become null and void by virtue of the subsequent order passed by this Court in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 33388 of 2025 (Rahabar Vs. State of U.P. Another) as this Court by allowing the aforesaid application has quashed and set aside the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial no. 30 of 2023 in pursuance of Case Crime no. 142 of 3 CRLP No. 19256 of 2025 2022 under Section 3(1) of U.P.Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PS- Hazaratnagar Garhi, District Sambhal as well as charge sheet dated 18.12.2022 and cognizance order dated 02.05.2023 along with gang chart dated 04.07.2022 in respect of applicant. It is further submitted that in such a situation the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 has no legal sanctity.

5. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri S.K. Ojha, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State that the petitioners have alternative remedy to approach before the authority concerned challenging the order impugned passed by respondent no. 2 as itself mentioned in its operative portion, which is quoted herein below:- र्क्त िववेचना के आधार पर असकरी हसन द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्राथर्ना-पत्र िदनांक "उपयु 06.06.2024 व लारेव हसन (नाबािलग) संरिक्षका श्रीमती िरजवाना अंजुम पत्नी रहबर हसन की ओर से प्रस्तुत प्राथर्ना-पत्र िदनांिकत 11.07. 2024 असत्य कथानक पर आधािरत होने के फलस्वरूप एतद्द्वारा अस्वीकार िकये जाते हैं तथा स्थानीय पुिलस थाना-हजरतनगर गढ़ी, जनपद-सम्भल द्वारा प्रस्तुत आख्या िदनांक 05.02.2023 के आधार पर उत्तर प्रदेश िगरोहबन्द एवं समाज िवरोधी िक्रयाकलाप ( िनवारण) अिधिनयम-1986 की धारा-14 (1) के अन्तगर्त इस न्यायालय द्वारा पूवर् पािरत प्रारिम्भक आदेश िदनांक 03 माचर्, 2023 को यथावत् रखते हुए उपरोक्त गितमान वाद की कायर्वाही समाप्त की जाती है। पत्रावली तैयार कर (मूल बाद पत्रावली) मा. अपर िजला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश (िवशेष न्यायालय गैंगेस्टर एक्ट), सम्भल (िस्थत घन्दौसी) के न्यायालय को प्रेिषत हो। पत्रावली बाद अनुपालन अिभलेखागार में संिचत हो।"

6. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State further submitted that in order to appreciate the controversy in hand, it is relevant to extract the relevant sections of the Act, 1986, which are reads as follows:- "15. Release of property. - (1) Where any property is attached under Section 14, the claimant thereof may within three months from the date of knowledge of such attachment make a representation circumstances in and the sources by which such property was acquired by him. the District Magistrate showing (2) If the District Magistrate is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made under sub-section (1) he shall forthwith release the property from attachment and thereupon such property shall be made over to the claimant.

16. Inquiry into the character of acquisition of property by Court. - 1) Where no representation is made within the period specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15 or the District Magistrate does not release the property under sub-section (2) of Section 15 he shall refer the matter with his report to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under this Act. (2) Where the District Magistrate has refused to attach any property under sub-section (1) of Section 14 or has ordered for release of any property under sub-section (2) of Section 15, the State Government or any person aggrieved by such refusal or release may make an application to the Court referred to in sub- 4 CRLP No. 19256 of 2025 section (1) for inquiry as to whether the property was acquired by or as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act. Such Court may, if it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of justice so to do, order attachment of such property. (3)(a) On receipt of the reference under sub-section (1) or an application under sub-section (2), the Court shall fix a date for inquiry and give notices thereof to the person making the application under subsection (2) or, as the case may be, to the person making the representation under Section 15 and to the State Government, and also to any other person whose interest appears to be involved in the case. (b) On the date so fixed or any subsequent date to which the inquiry may be adjourned, the Court shall hear the parties, receive evidence produced by them, take such further evidence as it considers necessary, decide whether the property was acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act and shall pass such order under Section 17 as may be just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. (4) For the purpose of inquiry under sub-section (3) the Court, shall have the power of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely :- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office; (e) issuing commission for examination of witness or documents; (f) dismissing a reference for default or deciding it ex parte (g) setting aside an order of dismissal for default or ex parte decision. (5) In any proceedings under this section, the burden of proving that the property in question or any part thereof was not acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of any offence triable under this Act, shall be on the person claiming the property, anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), notwithstanding.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh And Others reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771. The relevant paragraphs are quoted as under:- "27. The principles of law which emerge are that :

27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other CRLP No. 19256 of 2025 5 purpose as well.

27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person.

27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.

27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law.

27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.

27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with."

8. In view of settled legal position, case at hand is not exceptional case to interfere by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

9. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, bare reading of the relevant Sections of the Act, 1986 as well as principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is apparent that the petitioners have got a efficacious alternative remedy provided by law for 6 CRLP No. 19256 of 2025 the redressal of their grievance.

10. In view of above, since the petitioners have got a statutory remedy available to them, we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy. (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) October 28, 2025 Arti