Alternative remedy under the Revenue Book Circular limits Article 226 interference and channels disputes to the Collector.

Article 226 relief should ordinarily not be used where an adequate statutory alternative remedy exists, including an appeal to the Collector under Section 18 of the Revenue Book Circular. The text also notes that, when a matter is remitted to the original authority, that authority must act under the governing rules and regulations, and should not be subjected to personal summons to explain alleged misconduct. Any challenge to the Nazul Officer's refusal of an NOC on the basis of missing documents should be pursued through the prescribed appellate mechanism rather than contempt proceedings or direct writ interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court should have exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Revenue Book Circular against the order of the Nazul Officer. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in directing the Nazul Officer to appear personally to explain his alleged misconduct.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court should have exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Revenue Book Circular against the order of the Nazul Officer.

Analysis: The availability of an appellate remedy before the Collector was treated as a relevant restraint on the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The order of the Nazul Officer involved factual assessment and decision-making within the statutory and administrative framework, and the officer was the proper authority to decide the application in the first instance. The High Court was not justified in acting as an appellate forum over such factual findings when the respondent could pursue the statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have interfered in writ jurisdiction and the issue is answered in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in directing the Nazul Officer to appear personally to explain his alleged misconduct.

Analysis: Once the matter had been remitted to the original authority for a decision under the governing rules, circulars, and instructions, that authority had to be left free to decide according to law. Any error in the decision-making process was a matter for correction in the statutory hierarchy, not by compelling personal appearance to explain misconduct. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing such a direction.

Conclusion: The direction for personal appearance was unwarranted and the issue is answered against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders of the High Court were set aside and the appeals were allowed, leaving the respondent to pursue the statutory remedy if aggrieved by the administrative order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to review factual administrative decisions, and the High Court should not direct coercive personal appearance of the decision-maker when the matter lies within the statutory hierarchy.

---