Alternative remedy is no bar to writ relief where liability is admitted and no factual dispute remains.

Availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ relief under Article 226 where liability is admitted and no disputed question of fact survives. In such circumstances, the High Court should not compel the petitioner to pursue the alternative forum, because the writ court can grant relief directly on the admitted facts. The direction to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal was therefore unwarranted, and the dismissal of the writ petition was set aside. The respondents were directed to pay the admitted amount with interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy when the respondent had admitted liability and no disputed question of fact remained.

Analysis: Availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Where the liability is admitted and the controversy does not involve any disputed question of fact, the High Court ought not to relegate the petitioner to the alternative statutory forum. The direction to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal was therefore unwarranted in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The alternative remedy objection was not sustainable, and the appellant was entitled to relief in writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's dismissal was set aside, and the respondents were directed to pay the admitted amount with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: The existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ relief under Article 226 where liability is admitted and no disputed question of fact survives for adjudication.

---