JUDGMENT 1. :- In all these four writ petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, they are being decided by a composite order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Bharat Vyas, at length. 3. SB Civil Writ Petition No.3/2001 is hereby made the leading case. 4. Perused the order impugned dated 23.9.2000. 5. It is settled principle of law that a person aggrieved from an order, can approach to this Court, for a prerogative writ of certiorari, only after exhausting all statutory alternative remedies. Indisputably, the petitioners had effective alternative remedy of filing either an appeal, or a revision, within the meaning of Section 14 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1951"). 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Bharat Vyas that the alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order, is a cumbersome proceeding, containing a condition precedent to deposit 50 per cent of the tax assessed. According to Shri Vyas, the aforesaid condition is arbitrary and unconstitutional. Suffice it to say in this regard that under the rules of the Court, only vires of rules can be challenged before Single Bench, and whenever and wherever vires of an Act, are required to be challenged, then, such writ petitions are maintainable only before a Division Bench, not before a Single Bench. It is held that if the petitioners are intending to challenge the vires of Section 14 of the Act of 1951, they would be at liberty, to challenge the same before Division Bench, under the rules of the Court. In such a situation, they would not be required to file an appeal or revision under section 14 of the Act of 1951. Reasons for the aforesaid conclusion, are not far to seek. It is to be imbibed that any Tribunal, created under an Act, is not authorised to decide the Constitutional vires of an Act, under which, it is created. 7. Thus, from the discussions, made hereinabove, the petitioners have two options, either to file an appeal or revision, as envisaged under Section 14 of the Act of 1951, or they can challenge the vices of the aforesaid section, by filing a writ petition before Division Bench, on the ground, which the learned counsel for the petitioners, is canvassing before this Court sitting singly. 8. 8. It goes without saying that choice of forum is the privilege of the aggrieved person. Here, in the present case, the petitioners are free to choose the forum, as indicated hereinabove. 9. The present writ petition is not maintainable, on ground of alternative remedy, available to the petitioners.Consequently, the instant writ petitions are hereby dismissed, on ground of alternative efficacious remedies available to the petitioners mentioned hereinabove.Petition dismissed *******