Alternative statutory remedy barred writ challenge to octroi recovery under municipal rules, with Article 226 relief refused.

A writ challenge to the levy and recovery of octroi under newly enforced octroi rules was declined because the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 provided a statutory appeal under Section 406. The Court treated that alternative remedy as equally efficacious and held that the legality of the rules' implementation and the resulting recovery action should first be examined by the appellate authority. It therefore refused to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 at that stage and declined to consider the merits or the plea founded on justice, equity and good conscience.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging recovery of octroi under the newly brought into force octroi rules was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under Section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and whether the Court should exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the alternative remedy.

Analysis: The petitioners questioned the levy and recovery of octroi under the Octroi Rules framed under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, but the Court found that the Act itself provided an appellate remedy under Section 406. The challenge raised questions as to the legality of implementation of the rules and the consequent recovery action, which were matters better suited to examination by the statutory appellate authority. The Court declined to express any opinion on the merits because the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy was treated as a sufficient ground to refuse writ relief at that stage. The plea based on justice, equity and good conscience was also rejected for the same reason.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the statutory alternative remedy, and the Court refused to entertain the challenge under Article 226.

---