The Rajasthan High Court, on Saturday, in the case of Tej Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others. It was held that a petition filed under Article 226 in the High Court against the order of the trial court is not maintainable when an alternative remedy is already available.
The Single Judge Bench of Rajasthan High Courts, consisting Justice Dinesh Mehta, in his judgement, pronounced that a writ petition filed against Trial court to challenge the rejection of an injunction application shall not be held maintainable under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, as already a hierarchy of appellate authorities and thus an alternative remedy exists under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for dealing with the issue at hand.
In the present case, the petitioners had filed a suit seeking declaration of rights under Section 88 along with an injunction under Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the same was rejected by the trial court via its order sated 29 December, 2021. The petitioners, who were aggrieved by such an order of trial court, instead of availing the already existing alternative remedy of appealing as per the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 at the appellate authority, challenged the order by means of a writ petition in the High Court.
The Court, after hearing the arguments of counsels of both the parties, observed that despite alternative remedies were available for the petitioners to challenge the trial court’s order in the appellate court, the petitioners have directly rushed to the High court under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution and the same is not allowed. Thus such petition is non-maintainable.
Given the above-mentioned circumstances, the petition by the petitioners was dismissed and the High Court refused to entertain it. However, the court also informed the petitioners that they are free to avail legal remedy that is available under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
The Top Court while excusing the SLP thought about the record just as the affirmation which expressed that the applicant had not finished 240 days of ordinary work before August 1, 1985 according to the goal.
Examining something similar, it said that it was because of this that his name was excluded from the rundown of workers who were regularized by the Committee as far as the Circular/Resolution dated June 18, 1993.
The seat additionally thought to be the entries of applicant’s guidance that there were not many representatives who as indicated by him had not finished 240 days at the very latest August 8, 1985 however were as yet regularized.