1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
O R D E R
Devender Singh
Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Another.
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1051/08
.........
Date of Order : 18/08/2008
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR
BY THE COURT
Mr. S.L.Jain for the petitioner.
Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Addl. Government Counsel
Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Additional Government
Counsel submits that a remedy of revision under Section 65 of
the Rajasthan Stamps Act is available to the petitioner and
without exhausting the said remedy, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner is not maintainable.
A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
in G. Veerappa Pillai Vs. Raman & Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192,
held that if there is statutory remedy of appeal/revision available
to a person, the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in such
2
matters. Same view has been reiterated by the Constitution
Benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S. Rashid & Sons Vs.
Income Tax Investigation Commission & ors., AIR 1954 SC 207;
Union of India & ors. Vs. T.R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882; State of
U.P. & ors. Vs. Mohammed Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 and State of
Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Bhailal Bhai etc. etc., AIR 1964 SC
1006.
In U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey, (2005) 8
SCC 264, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in categorical terms
that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is
available under the Act unless exceptional circumstances are
made out.
In Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs.
Jabar Singh, & ors., (2007) 2 SCC 112, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that the High Court should not deviate from the
general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution
except when a very strong case is made out for making a
departure. There are several decisions to the same effect. The
Apex Court further held that the petitioners, who have not
invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal are not entitled to any
relief in the writ petitions.
The instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on
the ground that the writ petition has been filed without
3
exhausting the alternative, efficacious and statutory remedy of
revision.
The writ petition is therefore, dismissed as not
maintainable. However, it is open for the petitioner to challenge
the order impugned by way of revision. No order as to costs.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
rp
4
S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 1708/2008
In
S.B.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1051/2008
Date of Order : 18/08/2008
HON’BLE MR. H.R.PANWAR, J.
Mr. S.L.Jain for the petitioner.
Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Addl. Government Counsel
Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the
stay petition also stands dismissed.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
rp