Petitioner Firm Bound by Statutory Appeal, Cannot Pursue Writ

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the petitioner firm could not maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it had already filed a statutory appeal challenging the assessment order. The court emphasized the principle that once a party chooses a remedy, it must follow through with that remedy and cannot pursue multiple remedies in different forums for the same subject matter. The court's decision was based on established legal precedents and public policy considerations to avoid conflicting judgments and unnecessary litigation.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternate statutory appeal has already been filed challenging the assessment order.
2. Whether a party can choose multiple remedies in different forums for the same subject matter.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner firm sought relief through a writ petition to quash the assessment order and transfer order for the Assessment Year 2001-2002. The firm claimed the assessment was made ex parte without following proper procedures. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable as the firm had already filed a statutory appeal challenging the assessment order. The respondents contended that the firm cannot seek relief in both the appeal and the writ petition simultaneously. The court examined the legal principle that once a party chooses a remedy, it must follow through with that remedy, citing various precedents to support this principle. The court emphasized that allowing multiple remedies in different forums could lead to conflicting judgments and unnecessary litigation.

2. The court referred to cases such as K.S.Rashid and Sons v. Income-tax Investigation Commission and A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani to highlight the principle that when more than one remedy is available for the same grievance, the party must choose one remedy and cannot pursue multiple remedies simultaneously. The court reiterated that public policy demands that a party cannot choose two forums for the same subject matter seeking the same relief. The court emphasized that once a party has availed an alternative remedy, it is not appropriate for the court to entertain a writ petition on the same matter. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner firm had already chosen a remedy by filing a statutory appeal earlier, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. The court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the case and left the parties to bear their own costs.

In conclusion, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the petitioner firm could not maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it had already filed a statutory appeal challenging the assessment order. The court emphasized the principle that once a party chooses a remedy, it must follow through with that remedy and cannot pursue multiple remedies in different forums for the same subject matter. The court's decision was based on established legal precedents and public policy considerations to avoid conflicting judgments and unnecessary litigation.

---