Writ jurisdiction and parallel statutory recovery challenge rejected where appellate remedies were already pending and recovery modes were expressly authorized.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where appeals against the assessment orders were already pending before the statutory appellate authority, since that authority could fully examine and even enhance the assessments; the Court treated a parallel writ challenge as inappropriate at that stage. The Court also found no shown illegality in the Revenue's use of multiple statutory recovery modes, because the taxing statute expressly permitted recovery as arrears of land revenue, by application to a Magistrate, and by other mechanisms without prejudice to each other. As no specific ultra vires action or lack of authority was established, the recovery steps were not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable when appeals against the assessment orders were already pending before the statutory appellate authority. (ii) Whether the simultaneous resort to more than one statutory mode of recovery was unlawful or otherwise liable to be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable when appeals against the assessment orders were already pending before the statutory appellate authority.

Analysis: The assessment orders were under challenge in pending statutory appeals. The statutory appellate authority had jurisdiction to examine the assessments fully and even to enhance them. In such circumstances, invoking writ jurisdiction at the same time would interfere with the appellate process and amount to pursuing parallel remedies in respect of the same matter. The existence of the appellate remedy, together with the nature of the appellate authority's powers under the taxing statute, weighed against interference in writ jurisdiction at that stage.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable against the assessment orders while the appeals were pending, and the Court declined jurisdiction in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the simultaneous resort to more than one statutory mode of recovery was unlawful or otherwise liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The statute expressly permitted recovery of tax as an arrear of land revenue and by application to a Magistrate, without prejudice to other modes of recovery, and also provided a further recovery mechanism. The recovery proceedings were therefore sanctioned by law. No specific illegality, ultra vires action, or lack of authority in adopting more than one recovery mode was established. The Court also noted that the challenge to the conditional stay order was vague, unsupported by particulars, and not accompanied by any prayer to quash it.

Conclusion: The simultaneous recovery ition was not shown to be illegal or unauthorised, and no interference was warranted in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the Revenue's action and refused to interfere with either the pending assessment appeals or the recovery steps, leaving any sympathetic consideration to the authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appeal is already pending, the writ court should not ordinarily exercise discretionary jurisdiction to challenge the same assessment orders, and recovery under express statutory modes will not be interdicted absent a specific showing of illegality.

---