Availability of statutory alternative remedy precludes writ jurisdiction in certificate recovery proceedings.

The Appellant, formerly a Programme Officer, challenged a certificate proceeding (Case No. 4 of 2013–14) initiated under Section 4 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914.

An ex parte order dated 20.07.2016 directed him to deposit Rs. 2,09,166/-.

The Appellant filed a writ petition (CWJC No. 14520 of 2016) seeking to quash these proceedings.

The learned Single Judge dismissed/disposed of the writ on 16.12.2024, holding that the Appellant had failed to exhaust the statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 60 of the Act.

The Appellant filed this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) contending that since the inception of the case was "without jurisdiction," the writ petition should be entertained despite the alternative remedy.

1. Whether a writ petition can be entertained against a certificate recovery order when a specific statutory remedy of appeal is provided under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914.

2. Whether the availability of an alternative remedy precludes the High Court's interference in the present matter.

The Court primarily applied Section 10 and Section 60 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914.

Section 10 provides for the hearing and determination of petitions denying liability by the Certificate Officer.

Section 60 mandates that an appeal from any original order made under the Act shall lie to the Collector (if made by an Assistant/Deputy Collector/Certificate Officer) or to the Commissioner (if made by the Collector).

The principles of judicial restraint regarding Article 226 in the face of efficacious alternative remedies were also impliedly applied.

The Court examined the statutory framework of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, specifically noting that Section 60 provides a clear appellate route for parties aggrieved by orders passed under Section 10.

Regarding the Appellant’s argument that "lack of jurisdiction" at the inception justifies bypassing the appeal process, the Division Bench found no merit in this submission.

The Court reasoned that given the explicit provisions for adjudication and appeal within the local Act, the learned Single Judge was correct in refusing to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

There was no evidence of perversity in the Single Judge’s order that would warrant interference in an LPA.

It concluded that there is no perversity in requiring the petitioner to exhaust the statutory remedy under Section 60 of the Act.

The Appellant remains at liberty to prefer an appeal along with a limitation petition as directed by the Single Judge.