For the reason that the respondents may take objection before this Hon'ble Court that alternative

remedy is available to the petitioners to file a statutory appeal. The petitioner respectfully submit that the question of alternative remedy would not arise when there is violation of principle of natural justice and the authorities have not followed the statutory procedure in accordance with the provisions of the statutory rules. That Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principle in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. reported vide (2003)2SCC107. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under;

In an appropriate case in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the virus of an Act and is challenged.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed in the case of L. K. Verma v. H.M.T. Ltd. and Anr. reported vide (2006) 2 SCC 269 as under;

20. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in a given case although may not entertain a writ petition inter alia on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application. Despite existence of an alternative remedy, a writ court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review inter alia in cases where the court

or the tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction or for enforcement of a fundamental right or if there has been a violation of a principle of natural justice or where vires of the act is in question. In the aforementioned circumstances, Page 711 the alternative remedy has been held not to operate as a bar. [See Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 1, Sanjana M. Wig (Ms.) v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 242, State of H.P. and Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 499].
That similar view has been taken inrespectof Alternative Remedy by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in among other cases in the cases of Popcorn Entertainment and Another Versus City Industrial Development Corporation and Another reported vide (2007)9 SCC 593 and Mumtaz Post Graduate Degree College Versus Vice Chancellor reported vide (2009) 2 SCC 630. For the reason that in some identical matters this Hon'ble Court was pleased to consider the grievance of the petitioner and had issued notices to the respondents, as in the case of Ku. Kalpana Deshmukh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh bearing WP (S) No. 1345/2009 and in the case of Bhuneshwar Singh Chandra Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others. In the case of Ku Noorjahan Versus State of Chhattisgarh by an order dated 05/03/2008 reported vide 2008 (2) MPHT 84 (CG) this Hon'ble Court was pleased allow the petition.

That in the case of Popcorn Entertainment Vs. City Industrial Dev. Corp., reported vide (2007) 9 SCC 593, the Honble Supreme has decided the issue, when the court can interfere, even when there is an alternative remedy available. The relevant paras are quoted below for ready reference-

21. As regards non-maintainability of the writ petition, the appellant relied upon the following decisions of this Court wherein this Court has held that the writ petitions can be held to be maintainable under certain circumstances: i. Smt. Gunwant Kaur and Ors. v. Municipal Committee Bhatinda and Ors. (1969) 3 SCC 769 ii. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Company Ltd. and Anr. v. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and Anr. (1970) 1 SCC 582 iii. Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Ors.

(1995) 1 SCC 614 iv. Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 1

v. Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. v. Indian Oil Ltd. and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 107, vi. Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. Bangalore Stock Exchange (2003)10SCC212 vii. ABL International Ltd. and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. (2004)3SCC553 viii. Sanjana M. Wig (Ms.) v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 242 22. He invited our attention to the Whirlpool Corporation Case (supra) wherein this Court has held that there are three clear-cut circumstances wherein a writ petition would be maintainable even in a contractual matter. Firstly, if the action of the respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction, Secondly, if the principles of natural justice have been violated and Thirdly, if the appellants' fundamental rights have been violated. 23.According to the learned senior counsel, all the three principles as laid down in the case of Whirlpool Corporation have been made out in the instant case because the action of CIDCO is wholly without jurisdiction as it is seeking to resile from a concluded contract contrary to the express terms of the contract. Secondly, CIDCO, has violated the principles of natural justice as an order affecting the right of the appellant has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and thirdly, the appellants' fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India have been violated because similar allotments made without calling for tenders are not sought to be cancelled and the appellant is being singled out by CIDCO while seeking to cancel the allotment in favour of the appellant.

47. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions made by the respective counsel appearing on either side. In our opinion, the High Court has committed a grave mistake by relegating the appellant to the alternative remedy when clearly in terms of the law laid down by this Court, this was a fit case in which the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction in order to consider and grant relief to the respective parties. In our opinion, in the instant case, 3 of the 4 grounds on which writ petitions can be entertained in contractual matter were made out and hence it was completely wrong by the High Court to dismiss the writ petitions. In the instant case, 3 grounds as referred to in Whirlpool Corpn. (supra) has been made out and accordingly the writ petition was clearly maintainable and the High Court has committed an error in relegating the appellant to the civil court. 1 That in the case of Sanjana M. Wig Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 242, the Honble Supreme Court has held that-

14. A Division Bench of this Court in ABL International Ltd. and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Ors. MANU/SC/1080/2003 : (2004)3SCC553 , observed that in certain cases even a disputed question of fact can be gone into by the court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, holding : "28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of tins power. (See Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks) And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally he exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the Stale or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and

legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction." 15. In Harbanslal Sahnia (supra), Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was), relied upon Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks observing that in an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies : (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.

17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. (supra), referring to Harbanslal Sahnia, (supra) held : "22[24]...There are two well recognized exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies. First is when the proceedings are taken before the thrum under a provision of law which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that they are incompetent without a party being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their fall course. Secondly, the doctrine as no application when the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. We may add that where the proceedings itself are an abuse of process of law the High Court in an appropriate case can entertain a writ petition. 23[25]. Where under a statute there is an allegation of infringement of fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess can be the grounds on which the writ petitions can be entertained. But normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would he a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute."