Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs Union Of India & Ors

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7337 OF 2002

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

ORDER

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02/03/2001

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.1123

of 1997 whereby the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition of the appellant

solely on the ground that alternative remedy being available the appellant must

resort to the alternative remedy.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

By now it is a well settled principle of law that availability of alternative

remedy is not an absolute bar for granting relief in exercise of power under Article

226 of the Constitution.

In the present case between 4th March, 1992 and 31st December, 1992

the appellant had booked rakes for carrying coal to Gurla. A sum of

Rs.3,56,69,671/- which had been collected from the appellant over a period of time 2

by mistake. That the mistake has been committed is admitted by the respondent

herein and it has duly been noted by the High Court. However, the High Court, in

our view, erroneously rejected the claim on the ground of availability of alternative

remedy. On the aforesaid premises the High Court dismissed the writ petition with

the direction to the appellant to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal for

alternative remedy provided under Section 13 of The Railway Claims Tribunal

Act,1987 (hereinafter the 'Act').

We are clearly of the view that as the respondent-Union of India has

clearly admitted the liability, the High court ought not to have relegated the

appellant to his alternative remedy and should not have dismissed the writ petition

on that count. There is no disputed question of fact in this case. As already noted, in

the present case the respondent had admitted its liability and, therefore, the question

raised before the High Court being an admitted fact the High Court ought not to

have directed the appellant to resort to its alternative remedy under the Act. 3

In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned order of the High

Court. This appeal is allowed. No costs. The respondents are directed to pay the

admitted liability along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. with effect from 6th

January, 1993 till payment is made within three months from today.

............................J. ( H.K. SEMA )

............................J. ( MARKANDEY KATJU ) NEW DELHI, MAY 07, 2008.