MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. WE have also considered the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case and the provisions of Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 ("PDR Act" for short) were also examined.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal by the appellant is against the order of the learned Single Judge, recorded on 2.7.7.2005 in CWJC No. 8795 of 2005, whereby, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the original writ petitioner, appellant before us, came to be rejected on the ground that there lies an appeal against the impugned order of original respondent No. 2 Subdivisional Certificate Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas.

(3.) ORDINARILY, when an efficacious, alternative, statutory mechanism is provided, the parties are normally expected to exhaust that remedy. Merely because questioning the impugned order by filing an appeal would result into payment of 40% of the amount of the demand by way of deposit, a person cannot be heard to say that the Court has to hear merely because the question of jurisdiction is raised.