The Allahabad High Court has refused to intervene in the petition against the demolition of Bhrigu Ashram building located in Ballia by the National Highway Authority.
The Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Anshuman Mishra.
The petitioner is before the Court with request to issue direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to demolish his house situated towards south side of Satish Chandra College to Mangal Pandey, Murti Kadam Chauraha, 12 feet pitch road beyond 26 feet of road Patari.
Pawan Kumar Mishra, counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that under Section 14 of The Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002, the Tribunal has power to entertain appeals from orders passed or actions taken under Sections 26, 27, 28, 36, 37 and 38 by the Highways Administration or an Officer authorized on its behalf, as the case may be; and that under Section 16 read with Section 17, the Tribunal has power to grant interim protection.
It has, thus, been submitted that the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy, therefore, the petition may be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
Ordinarily, where there is statutory alternative remedy available and the same is also efficacious, the Writ Court should be circumspect in entertaining the matter directly unless the order impugned passed or actions taken is in violation of principles of natural justice or is without jurisdiction or the vires of the Act or Rules under which the order has been passed is under challenge, the Court said.
“In the case, no notice is given to the petitioner and, therefore, in our view, it would be appropriate that the petitioner avails alternative statutory remedy under the provisions of The Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take recourse to alternative statutory remedy under the 2002 Act (supra).