B. A. Khan ( 1 ) APPELLANT s property No. 6 situate at Jantar Mantar Road was assessed to house tax for 1994-95 and 1995-96. A demand of Rs. 34 lacs and odd was raised against her. She filed C. W. 420/1996 to challenge this on the ground that tax was not, leviable as the construction of the building was incomplete. Her writ petition was dismissed by writ court by impugned order dated 8/7/1996 for availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 115 of NDMC Act and on the strength of some judgment of the Supreme Court. ( 2 ) APPELLANT feels aggrieved of this and has filed appeal to assail the writ court order. Her case is that writ court was bound to entertain her writ petition, notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy of appeal. Her counsel Mr. Narula submitted that writ court could not dismiss her writ petition as she had challenged the very basis of levy which was not attracted to incomplete constructions. ( 3 ) MERIT of the matter apart, we see no infirmity in the impugned order declining to exercise writ jurisdiction. Writ jurisdiction is a discretionary and equitable one and it is for the writ court to exercise it in the face of alternative remedy. It cannot be compelled to do it where it feels that available alternative remedy provided by law could achieve the object. ( 4 ) THERE is a general tendency to invoke writ jurisdiction to by-pass the available alternative remedy of Appeal, sometimes designed to wriggle out of the prescribed requirements which invariably provided for pre-deposit of assessed tax etc. This breads negative consequences of overstreching and over-straining the otherwise extraordinary jurisdiction and also makes available alternative remedy redundant, besides resulting in loss to state exchequer. Therefore, where writ court declines to interfere in the wake of such considerations, it cannot be pressed and pestered to proceed with the petition. It also required to be clarified that declining to exercise such jurisdiction does not and would not mean that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, which it undoubtedly possesses but would not want to exercise because of available remedy under the law. ( 5 ) WE accordingly hold that it was the prerogative of writ Court to entertain or otherwise a writ petition in the face of availability of alternative remedy provided under law. ( 5 ) WE accordingly hold that it was the prerogative of writ Court to entertain or otherwise a writ petition in the face of availability of alternative remedy provided under law. It could not be asked to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction in all events and circumstances, more particularly in cases resulting in by passing the provided legal remedy so as to escape the rigour of its prescribed conditions and making it redundant in the process. Where law provided a remedy, it was required to be availed off and not side-tracked. ( 6 ) IN this view of the matter we find it difficult to interfere and disturb the writ court order which is affirmed. However, appellant could still take an appeal under section 115 of the Act and raise all issues including jurisdictional plea in it and in that event any plea of limitation shall not come in her way, though she would have to satisfy its prescribed requirements.