Division Bench allowed writ appeals challenging Single Judge dismissal based on alternative remedy, relying on precedents establishing writ jurisdiction in pure questions of law.
Impugned common order dated 03/04/2025 set aside, matter remitted to learned Single Judge to decide writ petitions on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2025:CGHC:45836-DB
NAFR
HARNEET KAUR
Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.09.19 13:14:29 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 490 of 2025
M/s Sunil Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Radheshyam Agrawal Aged About 50 Years Seva Kunj Road Near Girls College Raigarh Chhattisgarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division - Ii Commercial Tax - Gst Department North Block, Sector-19 Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax Bilaspur Division- Ii Commercial Tax- Gst Department North Block Sector-19 Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Commercial Tax Officer Raigarh Circle Circle - Ii Korba Commercial Tax- Gst Department North Block, Sector -19 Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2
4 - Commercial Tax Officer Raigarh Circle-I, Commercial TaxGst Department North Block Sector-19 Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5 - Assistant Commissioner , Circle-I, Raigarh Commercial TaxGst Department North Block Sector-19 Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ramit Mehta (appeared through video conferencing) with Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocates For Respondents/ State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.
Writ Appeal No. 436 of 2025
BGR Mining And Infra Limited A Company Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Office At 8-2-596/r, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034, Telangana (State), And Its Office At 598/6, S S Plaza, P.H. Road, Korba, P.O. And P.S. Korba, District- Korba Chhattisgarh
Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Commercial Taxes, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Mandir Hasod, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2 - Joint Commissioner Of State Tax Bilaspur, Division No. 2, P.O. And P.S. Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3
3 - Deputy Commissioner Of State Taxs Bilaspur Division No. 2, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Korba Division, Korba, District Corba, Chhattisgarh
5 - Commercial Tax Officer (Commercial Tax Circle-2), Korba Division, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.
Writ Appeal No. 524 of 2025
M/s Naraayani Sons Private Limited 209, Ajc Bose Road, Kamani Estate, 4th Floor, Room No 166, Kolkata 700017, Cin U51900wb2005ptc102304 Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Rajendra Kr. Agrawal, S/o Banwari Lal Agrawal, Aged About 53 Years , R/o 19 C, Harish Mukherjee Road, Kolkata (W.B.)
--- Appellant
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax Gst Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar , Nawa Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Divisional Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax, Bilaspur Division Ii Commercial Tax Gst Department Ambe Plaza, Tifra, Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4
3 - Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division Ii, Commercial Tax Gst Department , Ambe Plaza , Tifra , Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.,
4 - Commercial Tax Officer Commercial Tax, Korba , Circle Ii, Commercial Tax Gst Department , Collectorate Campus, Korba , District Korba Chhattisgarh
5 - Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax, Bilaspur Division Ii, Commercial Tax Gst Department, Ambe Plaza , Tifra , Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
6 - Commissioner Commercial Tax Department, Department Of Commercial Tax Gst , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Sahu on behalf of Mr. Neelabh Dubey, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.
Writ Appeal No. 516 of 2025
Dee Cee Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. A Company Duly Registered Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At 206, Palco House, 2162/ T-10, Guru Arjun Nagar, Main Road, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi 110008 Through Its Authorized Signatory - Ravindra Bura S/o Late Shri Dei Ram Bura, Aged About 60 Years, R/o M.I.G.-1/59, Mp Nagar Extension, Korba, District Korba - 495677, (Appellant)
--- Appellant
Versus
5
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax - G.S.T., Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Divisional Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax, Bilaspur Division - Ii, Commercial Tax Gst Department, Ambe Plaza, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3 - Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division - Ii, Commercial Tax Gst Department, Ambe Plaza, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - Commercial Tax Officer Commercial Tax, Korba, Circle - I, Commercial Tax Gst Department, Collectorate Campus, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh
5 - Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax, Bilaspur Division Ii, Commercial Tax Gst Department, Ambe Plaza, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
6 - Commissioner Commercial Tax Department, Department Of Commercial Tax Gst Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.
Writ Appeal No. 515 of 2025
Dee Cee Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. A Company Registered Under The Provision Of The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At 206, Palco House, 2162/ T-10, Guru Arjun Nagar, Main Road, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, 110008, Through Its
6
Authorized Signatory, Ravindra Bura, S/o Late Sri Dei Ram Bura, Aged About 60 Years R/o Mig-1/59, M P Nagar, Extension, Korba District Korba 495677
--- Appellant
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax Gst, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bilaspur Division Ii, Commercial Tax-Gst Department, Ambe Plaza, Tifra, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3 - Joint Commissioner, State Tax Bilaspur Division Ii, Commercial Tax-Gst, Department, Ambe Plaza, Tifra, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax, Korba, Circle-Ii, Commercial Tax, Gst, Department, Collectorate Campus, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh
5 - Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Bilaspur DivisionIi, Commercial Tax-Gst Department, Ambe Plaza, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
6 - Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Department Of Commercial Tax, Gst, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
| For Appellant | : Mr. | Anand Dadariya, Advocate |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondents/State | : Mr. | Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. |
7
Writ Appeal No. 437 of 2025
BGR Mining And Infra Limited A Company Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Office At 8-2-596/r, Road No. 10, Bajara Hills, Hyderabad-500034 (Telangana State) And Its Office At 598/6, S. S. Plaza, P.H. Road, Korba, P.O. And P.S. - Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Commercial Taxes, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Mandir Hasod, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Joint Commissioner Of State Tax Bilaspur, Division No. 2, Post Office And Police Station Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Deputy Commissioner Of State Taxs Bilaspur, Division No. 2, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Korba Division, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
5 - Commercial Tax Officer (Commercial Tax Circle-2) Korba Division, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.
Division Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment On Board
8
09.09.2025
1. Since common question of fact and law is involved in all these writ appeals, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. By way of these writ appeals, the appellants herein have questioned the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order dated 03/04/2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petitions preferred by the appellants/petitioners have been dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious alternate remedy holding that the appellants/petitioners have alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
3. Writ Appeal No. 490/2025 is taken up as the lead case and facts of this case are taken for deciding all the appeals. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :-
9
“A” contractor by the office of the Engineer-in-Chief Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh. The appellant firm requires High Speed Diesel for the purpose of running of machineries and for performance of the work order as granted to the petitioner, as such, the appellant firm vide its application dated 23/12/2019 addressed to respondent No. 4 i.e. the Commercial Tax Officer for seeking amendment in the registration certificate issued under the CST Act and CGVAT Act on account that the appellant firm will be granted work related to mining and such amendment is necessary so as to procure High Speed Diesel interstate against C form.
(ii) Respondent No. 4, after consideration, allowed the application of the appellant firm and conveyed that the words “High Speed Diesel for Mining Machinery” will be added in the registration certificate and be effective from 05/02/2020 and the amendment was given effect to by respondent No. 3 by inserting the aforesaid words.
(iii) Thereafter, on 01/10/2020 (Annexure P-13 of the writ petition), respondent No. 1 issued impugned notice under Section 49(1) of the CGVAT Act read with Section 9(2) of the CST Act stating that the appellant firm has misused C form and invoking suo-moto power as envisaged under Section 49(1) of the CGVAT Act, the appellant firm was called upon
10
to produce the documents to prove that they are engaged in mining activity to which the appellant firm submitted its reply on 03/10/2020 (Annexure P-14 of the writ petition) stating that the amendment has rightly been allowed in the registration certificate for use of High Speed Diesel in Mining Machinery.
(iv) However, respondent No. 2 passed impugned order dated 14/10/2020 (Annexure P-15 of the writ petition) under Section 49(3) of the CGVAT Act read with Section 9(2) of the CST Act while adjudicating upon the impugned notice dated 01/10/2020 and directed for deletion of the words “High Speed Diesel for Mining Machinery” from the registration form.
(v) Being aggrieved with the impugned notice dated 01/10/2020 and impugned order dated 14/10/2020, the appellant firm along with the other appellants herein preferred a bunch of writ petitions bearing WPT/99/2020 and other connected matters which was allowed in toto by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 18/10/2022 (Annexure A-2) by setting aside the impugned order dated 14/10/2020 as well as impugned notice dated 01/10/2020 by repelling and over-ruling the plea of availability of alternative statutory remedy taken by the respondents/State.
11
(v) Challenging the order dated 18/10/2022, the respondents/State preferred a batch of writ appeals inlcuding WA/121/2023 whereby the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 01/09/2023 (Annexure A- 3), allowed the appeals of the respondents/State and after setting aside the order of learned Single Bench, remitted the matter to learned Single Judge for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. Though the plea was taken by the respondents/State that the petition as framed without availing the alternative statutory remedy for questioning the order impugned as prescribed under Section 49(4) of the CGVAT Act is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone but the Division Bench did not dismiss the writ petitions on that ground rather touched upon the merits of the matter and remitted it to learned Single Judge with a direction to decide it in accordance with law.
(vi) Thereafter, again the writ petitions were taken up for hearing by learned Single Judge after being remitted by the Division Bench and this time, learned Single Judge entertained the plea of availability of alternative statutory remedy and dismissed the writ petitions vide impugned order dated 03/04/2025 (Annexure A-1) which has led to the filing of the instant appeals by the appellant firms.
12
4. It is the case of the appellants that no opportunity of hearing was granted to them under Section 49(1) and 49(3) of the CGVAT Act and thus, the impugned notice dated 01/10/2020 (Annexure P-13 of the writ petition) is bad in law and furthermore, there is a serious legal question of law involved in the matter as respondent No. 2, while passing the impugned order dated 14/10/2020 (Annexure P-15 of the writ petition), has done violence to the statute by misinterpreting an misconstruing the term “in Mining” as employed under unamended Section 8(3)(b) of the CST Act.
5. Mr. Ramit Mehta and Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant in WA/490/2025, would submit that learned Single Judge, in the first round of litigation, while passing the order dated 18/10/2022 (Annexure A-2), had already dealt with the issue of alternative remedy in detail and held that only because of availability of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under the law, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be dismissed and the Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain this writ petition and allowed it on merits. Thereafter, the Division Bench, while passing the judgment dated 01/09/2023 (Annexure A-3), did not consider the
13
plea of alternative remedy taken by the respondents/State and remanded the matter to learned Single Judge for deciding it afresh in accordance with law and since the said judgment of the Division Bench was never challenged by the respondents/State on the ground that the Division Bench ought to have dismissed the writ petition on account of availability of alternative remedy, therefore, it has attained finality and in the second round of litigation, learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy rather the writ petition ought to have been considered on merits as it involves serious question of law and dispute with regard to misinterpretation of the term ‘in mining’ as employed under Section 8(3)(b) of the CST Act. They would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-assessing authority and Others 1 and Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Others 2 and submit that the impugned order dated 03/04/2025 (Annexure A-1) be set aside and appropriate order may be passed while remanding the matter to learned Single Judge for deciding it on merits.
2 (2022) 16 SCC 428
1 2023 SCC Online SC 95
14
6. Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned counsel for the appellant in WA/515/2025 and WA/516/2015, would support the aforesaid submission and further place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Daryao and Others v. State of U.P. and Others 3.
7. Mr. Apurv Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant in WA/436/2025 and WA/437/2025 as well as Mr. Jitendra Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant in WA/524/2025, also seek the setting aside/quashment of order impugned dated 03/04/2025 (Annexure A-1) and rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of
Radha Raman Samanta v. Bank of India and Others 4.
8. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State, would support the order passed by learned Single Judge and submit that the Division Bench had remitted the matter to learned Single Judge to decide it in accordance with law which would also mean that it was open to learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy by filing appeal under Section 49(4) of the CGVAT Act before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, as such, the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein have rightly
4 (2004) 1 SCC 605
3 AIR 1961 SC 1457
15
been dismissed and the instant appeals are also liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.
10. It is not in dispute that in the first round of litigation, the appellants herein filed a bunch of writ petitions and questioned the notice dated 01/10/2020 (Annexure P-13 of the writ petition) as well as order dated 14/10/2020 (Annexure P-15 of the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 by which the words “High Speed Diesel for Mining Machinery” were directed to be deleted from the registration certificate whereby learned Single Judge, vide order dated 18/10/2022 (Annexure A-2), over-ruled the plea of alternative statutory remedy taken by the
respondents/State and decided the writ petitions on merits and set aside the order dated 14/10/2020 in toto, which was put to challenge by the respondents/State in writ appeal whereby the Division Bench, by its judgment dated 01/09/2023 (Annexure A-3), only held that notice dated 01/10/2020 is a proper notice and though noted the plea of alternative remedy taken by the respondents/State but did not entertain that plea and while allowing the appeal, remitted the matter back to learned Single Judge for
16
deciding in accordance with law. As such, the order passed by the Division Bench had attained finality and when the matter was remitted back, learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy without going into the merits of the matter.
11. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Radha Raman Samanta (supra) may be noticed herein profitably, which is based on similar set of facts as the instant case and whereby their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under :-
“12. On the earlier occasion when the matter was considered by the Division Bench the respondentBank did not raise any issue of alternative remedy or any question relating to non-maintainability of the writ petition. We may also notice that when such issues might and ought to have been raised but had not been done so, it must be taken that the Division Bench had rejected such contentions and the order of the Division Bench remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge was not carried in appeal and became final. Therefore, the learned single Judge was bound to address only on one issue upon which the matter had been remanded. Thus, the Division Bench could not have overlooked these facts in the appeal arising from the order of the learned single Judge on the second occasion after remand and need not have gone into the question as lo whether the writ petition could have been entertained at all or not. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court could not have overlooked these facts and interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. ”
17
12. In the instant case, once the Division Bench had remitted the matter to learned Single Judge for deciding it in accordance with law, without entertaining the plea of availability of alternative statutory remedy, which was also not accepted by learned Single Judge in the first round of litigation, therefore, it has attained finality and as such, in the second round of litigation, it was not open to learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy. [See: Radha Raman Samanta (supra)]
13. Moreover, one of the legal issues involved in the writ petitions is with regard to the impugned action of respondent No. 2 directing deletion of the words “High Speed Diesel for Mining Machinery” from the registration form after misinterpreting the term “in mining” as employed under unamended Section 8(3)(b) of the CST Act. Since the Division Bench had remanded the matter for deciding it in accordance with law, learned Single Judge ought to have gone into the said legal issue involved in the matter rather than going back and dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy, which issue had already attained finality by the orders of learned Single Judge affirmed by the Division Bench in the first round of litigation.
18
14. In the matter of M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra), it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by this court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available, which has been observed in paragraph 8 of the report as under :-
“8. That apart, we may also usefully refer to the decisions of this Court reported in (1977) 2 SCC 724 (State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.) and (2000) 10 SCC 482 (Union of India vs. State of Haryana) . What appears on a plain reading of the former decision is that whether a certain item falls within an entry in a sales tax statute, raises a pure question of law and if investigation into facts is unnecessary, the high court could entertain a writ petition in its discretion even though the alternative remedy was not availed of; and, unless exercise of discretion is shown to be unreasonable or perverse, this Court would not interfere. In the latter decision, this Court found the issue raised by the appellant to be pristinely legal requiring determination by the high court without putting the appellant through the mill of statutory appeals in the hierarchy. What follows from the said decisions is that where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the high court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available.”
15. Similarly, in the matter of Magadh Sugar and Energy
Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has held that where the question of law involved is comprehensive reading of
19
the provisions of an Act and can be adjudicated without delving into any factual dispute, it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and further held that while a High Court would normally not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available, the existence of an alternative remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies. Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the judgment may be noticed herein profitably :-
“26. The issues raised by the appellant are questions of law which require, upon a comprehensive reading of the Bihar Electricity Act, a determination of whether tax can be levied on the supply of electricity by a power generator (which also manufactures sugar) supplying electricity to a distributor; and whether the first respondent has the legislative competence to levy duty on the sale of electricity to an intermediary distributor in view of the decision of this Court in State of A.P. v. NTPC Ltd., (2002) 5 SCC 203 . The question of whether the appellant is liable to file returns under Sections 6-B(1) and 5-A of the Act is directly related to the issue of whether the sale of electricity by the appellant to BSEB falls under the charging provisions of Section 3(1). The questions raised by the appellant can be adjudicated without delving into any factual dispute. Thus, the present matter is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
20
High Court dated 18-9-2017 arising out of CWJC No. 4300 of 2015. The writ petition is restored to the file of the High Court for fresh determination. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.”
16. For the reasons mentioned herein-above in light of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Radha Raman Samanta (supra), M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. and Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited (supra) and in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in the first round, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge is unjustified in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy without going into the merits of the matter, as was directed by the Division Bench, even though the question of availability of alternative statutory remedy was over-ruled by learned Single Judge in the first round of litigation and it was also not entertained by the Division Bench, therefore, once the order of Division Bench had attained finality, learned Single Judge could not have gone into the said question again and could not have dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Accordingly, the impugned common order dated 03/04/2025 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set aside and matter is remitted to learned Single Judge to decide the writ petitions on merits and/or the question of law involved, if
21
any. We request the writ court to take up the matter and decide it expeditiously keeping in view that the impugned order in question was passed on 14/10/2020 (Annexure P- 15 of the writ petition).
17. With the aforesaid observations, this batch of writ appeals are allowed with no order as to cost(s).
Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge
Harneet
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Division Bench judgment granting finality on alternative remedy issues binds the learned Single Judge upon remand.
Whether presence of alternative statutory remedy bars High Court writ jurisdiction in a purely legal controversy.
Whether learned Single Judge could dismiss writs on alternative remedy ground after Division Bench ignored that plea.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-assessing authorityExplained¶107
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-assessing authority and Others
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-assessing authorityExplained¶109
(2022) 16 SCC 428 · Who else cites this
Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of BiharExplained¶107
Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Others
Daryao and Others v. State of U.P.Explained¶113
Daryao and Others v. State of U.P. and Others
Daryao and Others v. State of U.P.Explained¶117
AIR 1961 SC 1457 · Who else cites this
Radha Raman Samanta v. Bank of IndiaFollowed¶114
Radha Raman Samanta v. Bank of India and Others
Radha Raman Samanta v. Bank of IndiaFollowed¶116
(2004) 1 SCC 605 · Who else cites this
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.Explained¶132
State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.Explained¶132
(1977) 2 SCC 724 · Who else cites this
Union of India vs. State of HaryanaExplained¶132
Union of India vs. State of Haryana
Union of India vs. State of HaryanaExplained¶132
(2000) 10 SCC 482 · Who else cites this
M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.Explained¶131
M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s Sunil Kumar Agrawal
BGR Mining And Infra Limited
M/s Naraayani Sons Private Limited
Dee Cee Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd.
State Of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Radhakishan Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
