Dismissed¶21

Alok Kumar Gupta v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC14 May 2026WP(C)/9920/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternative remedy; jumping/bypassing the appellate forum after remand; judicial review as rule of discretion not compulsion; Article 226 Constitution of India; Excise Commissioner, Odisha order dated 17-09-2025; appellate authority remand; statutory appeal; writ petition dismissed with liberty to pursue statutory appeal. Petitioner: Alok Kumar Gupta; Opposite Parties: State of Odisha and others. Bench: Chief Justice Harish Tandon with Justice Murahari Sri Raman. Relevant to queries on High Courts refusing entertainment of writ petitions where a statutory appellate remedy subsists, including post-remand re-dismissals.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, as provided in the statute, in accordance with law. ¶21

Alok Kumar Gupta Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, as provided in the statute, in accordance with law.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose case was remanded by the appellate authority and thereafter dismissed afresh by the Excise Commissioner, may bypass the appellate forum and directly approach the High Court under Article 226. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Once the petitioner has approached the appellate authority on an earlier occasion, even if a fresh order is passed after remand, he cannot jump the forum and approach the High Court by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Though the power of judicial review is not restricted to a remedy provided in the statute by way of an appeal, the High Court and the Apex Court refuse to entertain such writ petitions and relegate the parties to exhaust the statutory remedy; recourse to judicial review in such circumstances is a rule of discretion, not of compulsion.

¶19

Key takeaways

In view of the facts discerned from the record, the Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of entertaining the writ petition, as the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of an appeal under the statute.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.9920 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 14.05.2026; Coram: Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman. The petitioner assailed the order dated 17th September, 2025 of the Excise Commissioner, Odisha, passed after the appellate authority had earlier disposed of his appeal by remanding the matter for reconsideration. Counsel argued that a further resort to the appellate forum would be a farcical exercise. The Court held that once the petitioner had earlier approached the appellate authority, he cannot jump the forum and approach the High Court under Article 226 merely because a fresh order was passed after remand; judicial review, though not restricted to statutory remedies, is a rule of discretion rather than compulsion, and the Court declined to exercise that discretion as an alternative statutory appeal remained available. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to approach the appellate authority in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9920 of 2026

¶2

Shri Alok Kumar Gupta

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Sanjay Rath, AGA

¶8

CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

14.05.2026

The order dated 17^th September, 2025 passed by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha is sought to be assailed in the instant writ petition.

¶15

Initially, the order was passed by the same authority, which was assailed by the petitioner before the appellate authority by filing an appeal, who disposed of the said appeal remanding the matter for reconsideration. The Excise Commissioner, Odisha has again finally decided the issue and dismissed the petition.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the appellate authority remanded the matter and the order of dismissal has been passed, it would be a farcical exercise to move the appellate forum.

¶17

We are unable to comprehend such proposition of law. Once the petitioner approached the appellate authority on an earlier occasion, even if the order is passed after remand, he cannot jump the forum and approach the High Court by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. We are reminded of the well settled proposition of law

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

that though the power of judicial review is not restricted to a remedy provided in the statute by way of an appeal, yet the High Court and the Apex Court refuses to entertain such writ petition and relegate the parties to exhaust the remedy provided in the statute. It is the rule of discretion than of compulsion.

¶20

In view of the facts discerned from the record, we feel that it is not a case where we should exercise the discretion in entertaining the writ petition as the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of an appeal under the statute.

¶21

The writ petition is, thus, dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petition shall not prevent the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, as provided in the statute, in accordance with law.

¶22

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶23

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶24

MRS/Laxmikant

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-May-2026 11:24:43

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Alok Kumar Gupta v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Kumar Gupta v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S St Joans Education Society, Delhi Vs Odisha Computer Application Centre (Ocac), Bhubaneswar

Bs Fashion Wear, Khordha Vs State Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar I, Circle, Khorda

Surendra Kumar Das Vs M/S. Sai Krupa Real Estate Pvt.Ltd

M/S. Psr Elecon Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, Telengana Vs the Addl Comnr (Adjudicating Authority) GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Odisha

M/S Arupananda Pattnaik Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Ct and GST Territorial Range, Angul