ORDER : The petitioner, Reliance Industries Limited, is aggrieved by the Bill dated 04.07.2016 (Annexure-‘A’), and order dated 29.07.2016 (Annexure-‘B’), and the Attachment Warrant dated 05.01.2017 (Annexure-‘C’), passed by the Agalakuppe Grama Panchayath, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, whereby the Panchayath has directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.21,73,898/- as due to the Gram Panchayath. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner-Company is registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner is engaged in the business of refining, storage, distribution and sale of petroleum products. The petitioner claims that it owns 5 Acre 29 Guntas of land in Sy.No.11/2, 34, 35/2, 35/3, 36/2, 37 and 38, located in Kasaba Nijagal village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk. According to the petitioner, it had purchased the property, and has constructed a petrol bunk and set up a Restaurant in it. The vacant land around the construction admeasures 26,456 Square Meters, and the total built up area of the building is merely 1360 Square Meters. 3. By a resolution dated 10.04.2006, the respondent Gram Panchayath had levied a sum of Rs.31/- per Square Meter for the building, and a sum of Rs.3/- per 100 Square Meters for the vacant space. Eventually, the respondent Gram Panchayath had raised a Bill for Rs.3,45,870/- for the year 2005-06, and for the year 2006-07. By another Bill dated 04.12.2009, the Gram Panchayath had demanded a sum of Rs.8,33,631/-. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the enormous amount demanded by the Gram Panchayath, they filed an appeal before the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Bangalore Rural District. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by its order dated 01.12.2009. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.1696/2010 before this Court. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged both the resolution of the Gram Panchayath, and the order passed by the Appellate Authority. By order dated 17.01.2013, this court set aside the resolution dated 10.04.2006, and the order passed by the Appellate Authority. But, simultaneously, this court granted liberty to the Gram Panchayath to pass a fresh resolution assessing the tax in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioner, and to pass a fresh assessment order. Consequently, the Gram Panchayath has raised a Bill dated 04.07.2016 as per Annexure-‘A’ and has passed the order dated 29.07.2016, as per Annexure-‘B’, and Attachment Warrant dated 05.01.2017 as per Annexure-‘C’. Consequently, the Gram Panchayath has raised a Bill dated 04.07.2016 as per Annexure-‘A’ and has passed the order dated 29.07.2016, as per Annexure-‘B’, and Attachment Warrant dated 05.01.2017 as per Annexure-‘C’. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 4. This Court has raised a pointed query to the learned counsel for petitioner with regard to the availability of efficacious alternate remedy under Section 201 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (“the Act”, for short), and about the maintainability of the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has chosen not to pursue the alternate remedy provided under the Act, as directions had already been issued by this Court by order dated 17.01.2013. Since the directions have not been complied with, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 7. A bare perusal of the order dated 17.01.2013 clearly reveals that while this court had set aside the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayath, and the order passed by the Appellate Authority, this Court did not grant any liberty to the petitioner to challenge any other assessment order before this Court while ignoring the availability of alternate remedy available under Section 201 of the Act. Since an efficacious alternate remedy is provided under the said provision, the petitioner is required to first pursue the alternate remedy, and only thereafter, if the petitioner is so aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner would be free to approach this Court under its writ jurisdiction. However, only in the garb of certain directions issued by this Court, and especially when no opportunity has been granted by this Court to approach this Court directly, the petitioner cannot be permitted to circumvent the procedure established by law. 8. Since the impugned Bill and the Order, and Attachment Warrant are appealable orders, since alternate efficacious remedy does exist for the petitioner to pursue, this Court is of the firm opinion that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked by this Court. Therefore, due to availability of alternate efficacious remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. 9. The Registry is directed to return the original copies of Annexure-‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ to the petitioner.