Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Union Of India And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 2-3-2001 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1123 of 1997. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition solely on the ground that an alternative statutory remedy was available and directed the appellant to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

On the merits underlying the writ petition, between 4-3-1992 and 31-12-1992 the appellant booked rakes for carrying coal to Gurla. A total sum of Rs 3,56,69,671 had been collected from the appellant over a period of time by mistake. This mistake—and the corresponding liability—was admitted by the respondent Union of India and noted by the High Court. Despite this admission, the High Court relegated the appellant to the alternative remedy before the Tribunal, leading to the present appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, despite the respondent Union of India’s admitted mistake and liability and the absence of any disputed questions of fact.
2. If the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed on that ground, what relief should be granted, including the award of interest and the timeline for payment.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that the existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This principle is particularly pertinent where the material facts are undisputed and liability is admitted.

Applying this principle to the case, the Court noted that the respondent Union of India clearly admitted that Rs 3,56,69,671 had been collected from the appellant by mistake. The High Court also recorded this admission. In such circumstances, there was no disputed question of fact requiring adjudication through the specialized forum. Consequently, the High Court’s decision to dismiss the writ petition solely on the basis of the availability of an alternative remedy—and to direct the appellant to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 13 of the 1987 Act—was erroneous.

Given the admitted liability and the absence of factual disputes, the Court concluded that the High Court ought to have exercised its writ jurisdiction rather than relegating the appellant to the statutory remedy. On this basis, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and proceeded to direct payment of the admitted amount with interest.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The impugned order of the High Court is set aside; the appeal is ALLOWED. The respondents are directed to pay the admitted liability of Rs 3,56,69,671 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 6-1-1993 until payment is made, within three months from the date of the order. No costs.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the appellant is entitled to receive the admitted amount with interest within the stipulated period. More broadly, the decision applies the settled rule that the availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ relief under Article 226, especially where liability is admitted and no factual dispute exists. The opinion does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond reaffirming this established principle.