Petitioner directed to pursue statutory remedy before Commissioner against Collector’s order.

The petitioner challenged Memo No. 1234 dated 06.10.2022 issued by the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari, cancelling his reappointment and directing recovery of emoluments allegedly paid to him.

He also sought payment of withheld monthly emoluments, consideration of his representations, and declarations that the cancellation memo was procedurally defective and unlawful.

The State raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order had been passed by the Collector and that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the concerned Commissioner, which he had not availed.

The petitioner had also filed Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2024 seeking amendment of the writ pleadings.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before the concerned Commissioner against the Collector’s order dated 06.10.2022.

Whether the petitioner should be directed to pursue his grievances through a fresh representation before the Commissioner, without the High Court expressing any opinion on the merits.

The Court applied the established principle that the High Court ordinarily does not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution where the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy, particularly where the impugned order is appealable before a competent authority.

The Court further applied the procedural principle that, where appropriate, the petitioner may be permitted to approach the statutory or administrative authority through a representation, which must be considered by a reasoned and speaking order after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The impugned cancellation order was issued by the Collector, and the State specifically asserted that an appeal lay before the concerned Commissioner.

Since the petitioner had directly invoked the writ jurisdiction without first pursuing that alternative remedy, the Court did not examine the validity of the cancellation, recovery direction, or withholding of emoluments on merits.

Instead, it directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the Commissioner, along with a copy of the judgment, raising all grievances urged in the writ petition.

The Commissioner was required to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order within the prescribed period.

The petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 7, the Commissioner, Muzaffarpur, within 30 days, and the Commissioner was directed to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order, after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing, within 90 days of its filing.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits and that the authority must decide the matter independently and in accordance with law.

Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2024 was also disposed of.