JUDGMENT Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. Dhulia, Senior Counsel with Ms. Puja Sanga, Advocate for the respondents. They are heard on admission. 2. The petitioner Ravi Maheshwari has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the impugned order dt. 9-1-2006, passed by Vice Chairman, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun- respondent no. 2. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondent authorities to sanction the map/plan no. 189 of 2003-2004, submitted by the petitioner for construction over the open roof of first floor of property no. 3/4, Race Course, Dehradun. iii. pass any other and further orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. award the cost of writ petition to the' petitioner." 3. Mr. S. Dhulia, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order dated 09-01-2006 before the Divisional Commissioner, Garhwal Division. 4. Mr. Kishore Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that such an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order is available to the petitioner. 5. In the writ petition, it has not been shown as to how the statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order is not efficacious in the present case. 6. In this view of the matter, we decline to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed summarily. 7. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to avail the statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order before the Divisional Commissioner, Garhwal Division and seek condonation of the delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the petitioner was pursuing the writ petition under bonafide belief. 8. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. 9. With the above order, CLMA No. 5616 of 2006 also stands disposed of.