( 1 ) THE facts and question of the law involved in these writ appeals are common. Hence both the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE appellants are the owners of properties in Bangalore. The annual rental value of their properties has been revised by the respondent Corporation after inviting objections. Aggrieved by the same they have filed appeals before the Taxation Appeals Committee. The same were disposed of without assigning any reasons by issuing endorsements. Aggrieved by the same the appellants filed writ petitions. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the appellants to avail the appeal remedy provided under the Rules. Since it was submitted that the appellants could not file appeals provided under the statute on account of the reason that the detailed order passed by the Taxation Appeals Committee were not furnished to the appellant, a direction has been issued by the learned single Judge to the Corporation to see that certified copies of the orders are issued when applied. Assailing the orders of the learned single Judge the appellants have filed these two writ appeals. ( 3 ) MR. Paras Jain, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that the orders passed by the respondent Corporation, the Taxation Appeals Committee and the learned single Judge are not in conformity with the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court. According to him, the orders are not well-reasoned orders. The learned single Judge erred in directing the appellants to approach the District Court by way of appeals. His further submission is that the orders impugned in the writ petitions are in violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance has been placed on several decisions to contend that availability of alternative remedy is no bar for this Court to entertain the writ petitions on merits. Strong reliance is placed on the decision reported in 1997 (5) SCC 536 (Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Union of India) for the proposition that if any demand is raised ignoring the law laid down in the matter just to illegally enrich at the cost of the citizens, the citizens can approach the High Court as there is violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice. The counsel also placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in AIR 1984 Karnataka 4 (K. S. R. T. C. v. K. S. T. A. T.) to contend that once rule nisi is issued, the writ petitions should not have been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy as the said remedy is illusory and not efficacious. ( 4 ) WE have gone through the orders passed by the learned single Judge which are under challenge. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that right of appeal is a substantial right and it would be appropriate for the appellants to exhaust the said remedy. Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited when compared to the appellate jurisdiction. The learned single Judge found that there was no order passed in the appeals preferred by the appellants by the Taxation Appeals Committee and in order to appreciate the contentions of the appellants, order passed in the appeals should be furnished to the appellants and the appellants can approach the District Judge by way of appeals. The learned single Judge rightly directed the appellants to avail the alternative remedy and directed the respondent Corporation to furnish the copy of the order passed by the Taxation Appeals Committee. No fault can be found with the orders passed by the learned single Judge. ( 5 ) THE contention of Mr. Paras Jain, learned counsel for the appellants that availability of alternative remedy is no bar and the decisions pressed into service in this regard cannot be accepted. As already observed, the scope of this Court under Article 226 is very limited and the alternative remedy available to the appellants is more exhaustive and advantageous to them as the appellate authority can consider all aspects of the matters and pass appropriate orders. The contentions urged by the appellants in the writ petition as well as in these appeals and the decisions relied upon can be urged by availing the alternative statutory remedy. It is no doubt true that it is well-settled law that availability of alternative remedy is no bar for approaching this Court. But that cannot be permitted in all cases except where the orders are passed without jurisdiction or where the matter involves public interest or if there is any urgency wherein availing alternative remedy is not efficacious. It is no doubt true that it is well-settled law that availability of alternative remedy is no bar for approaching this Court. But that cannot be permitted in all cases except where the orders are passed without jurisdiction or where the matter involves public interest or if there is any urgency wherein availing alternative remedy is not efficacious. When such circumstances do not exist, the parties cannot be permitted to by- pass the statutory alternative remedy provided and to approach this Court straightway. If the doors of the Court are kept open for the litigants to approach without availing the alternative remedy, then the very purpose of the alternative remedy provided under the statute would become redundant. Such an exercise cannot be and should not be allowed. ( 6 ) THE contention of Mr. Paras Jain is that if the appellants had to avail the alternative remedy, they have to pay or deposit the amount demanded and the same would cause hardship to the appellants. That cannot be a ground for this Court to allow the appellants to escape from the statutory liability of paying the amount determined by the authorities. Ultimately if the appellants succeed in the litigation, the amount paid or deposited by them would be either refunded or adjusted towards the future tax. Except the fact that appellants have to pay or deposit the amount, no harm or injury would be caused to them. If they want to challenge the impugned action of the Corporation, they have no other option but to pay or deposit the amount and prosecute the matters. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel is not acceptable and the same is hereby rejected. ( 7 ) THE next contention is that the revision of tax impugned in the writ petition would amount to illegal collection of property tax without following the procedure contemplated and it is violative of Article 265 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice and that the learned single Judge has not considered this aspect and the law laid down in Mafatlal Industries case. No doubt the learned single Judge has not adverted to the said aspect. However, it is not the case of the appellants that the Corporation has no power to revise the property tax. The only grievance of the appellants is that the procedure prescribed has not been followed. No doubt the learned single Judge has not adverted to the said aspect. However, it is not the case of the appellants that the Corporation has no power to revise the property tax. The only grievance of the appellants is that the procedure prescribed has not been followed. This contention can be urged before the District Judge who will consider the same. ( 8 ) SINCE the appellants can urge all the contentions and rely upon the decisions pressed into service by availing the statutory remedy, this Court need not examine the same. We do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the learned single Judge and we are declining to entertain these writ appeals. ( 9 ) WRIT appeals are accordingly rejected. --- *** --- .