JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 and Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief : "(I) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus and commanding the respondent no.2 to remove the electricity cable of 33 K.V. feeder from the houses of the petitioners situate at Manjhanpur District Kaushambi in compliance of order dated 18.07.2018 passed by respondent no.2." 3. On 06.04.2023, this court passed a detailed order and directed the respondent no.2 to file a counter affidavit by means of his personal affidavit. The respondent no.2 was further directed to answer specifically the following questions : (i) Whether any compensation was paid to land owners while errecting the electric line in question? (ii) If answer to the question no.(i) is in affirmative, then the amount of compensation paid, be disclosed. (iii) Under what authority of law, the respondent no.2 has demanded a sum of Rs.35,78,595/- as a shifting charge to shift 33 KV Electric line in question? 4. Despite time granted the respondent nos. 1 & 3 have neither filed counter affidavit nor prayed for further time. 5. In compliance to the aforesaid order dated 06.04.2023, the respondent no.2 has filed today the counter affidavit by means of his personal affidavit dated 12.04.2023, which is taken on record. Facts : 6. Briefly stated undisputed facts of the present case are that the petitioners are the owner of the land over which a 33 KV electric line was installed by the respondent no.2. As per own case of the respondents, total 81 persons including the petitioners are affected by the aforesaid 33 KV electric line which according to the respondent no.2 was installed in the year 1995, without payment of any compensation in terms of the provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1885"). Grievance of the petitioners is that the aforesaid electricity line running between Osha Crossing and District Hospital, is passing over the land/houses of 81 persons including the petitioners causing serious threat to life and property. Grievance of the petitioners is that the aforesaid electricity line running between Osha Crossing and District Hospital, is passing over the land/houses of 81 persons including the petitioners causing serious threat to life and property. The petitioners and other affected persons have moved an application before the respondents for shifting of the line. An order dated 18.07.2018 was passed by the respondent no.3 on the basis of estimate of Rs.29,77,847/- as shifting charges for shifting of the aforesaid electricity line. However, by order dated 26.05.2022 the respondent no.2 i.e. Executive Engineer revised the estimate and required deposit of Rs.35,78,595/- for shifting of the aforesaid electric line. The petitioners and two other affected persons under compulsion, deposited the proportionate amount while remaining persons did not deposit the amount. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid electric line has not been shifted due to non deposit of shifting charges. 7. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for the relief aforequoted. Submissions : 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not liable to deposit any amount, as no compensation was paid to the land owners while erecting the electric line in question. He submits that once the respondents have themselves passed the order for shifting of the line, they can not delay shifting of electric line until the demand of charges for shifting of electric line is paid by all the affected persons. He submits that action of the respondents is in breach of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 9. Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the respondents are ready to shift the electric line provided all affected persons deposit the demanded amount of Rs.35,78,595/-. He submits that in the event petitioners are aggrieved, they have an alternative remedy to challenge the order of the District Magistrate, dated 18.07.2018 read with communication of the Executive Engineer, dated 26.05.2022, under Rule 3(3) of the Works of Lincensees Rules, 2006. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition and counter affidavit by means of personal affidavit filed today by the respondent no.2. In paragraphs 4 to 9 of the counter affidavit, the respondent no.2 has stated as under : "4. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition and counter affidavit by means of personal affidavit filed today by the respondent no.2. In paragraphs 4 to 9 of the counter affidavit, the respondent no.2 has stated as under : "4. That, before giving para-wise reply it is pertinent to point out certain facts that the 33 KV Electricity line has been installed in year 1995. No compensation has been paid to the land owners in respect to installation of Electricity overhead lines. 5. That, the Electricity line has been installed and poles were erected upon the land of bhumidhars. The survey of installation was done but no objection was raised by any of the land owners. The licensee has exercised the power conferred under section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to install the overhead Electricity line. The Copy of The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.CA-1 to this affidavit. 6. That, no objection has been filed by any of the land owners against installation of electricity line and erecting of poles since 1995. The section 3 (1) of the Works and licensing Rules 2006 provides that in case of objection of any of the land owner/occupier during survey or carrying out of work of installation of Electricity line, the licensee will take permission in writing from District Magistrate subject of payment of compensation or rent as the case may be. In present case prayer of shifting of 33 KV Electricity line has been requested. It is under jurisdiction of the district magistrate to consider such request. The Copy of the Works and licensing Rules 2006 is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.CA-2 to this affidavit. 7. That, answering respondent has not demanded any amount from any of residents but communicated to them in pursuance to the order dated 18-07-2018 passed by the district Magistrate while considering their representation. None of the residents has challenged the legality of the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate. The houses have been constructed in recent years while electricity line was installed in year 1995. 8. None of the residents has challenged the legality of the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate. The houses have been constructed in recent years while electricity line was installed in year 1995. 8. That, the District Magistrate Kaushambi passed speaking order on 18-07-2018 directing answering respondent to prepare list of residents and direct them to deposit estimated cost in proportion to remove the 33 KV Electricity line. The list of residents was jointly prepared by the Tehsildar and Junior Engineer of the Corporation jointly on 10-05-2022. 9. That, the order of District Magistrate could not be complied as the proportional amount directed to deposit has not been deposited in the joint account of Tehsildar and answering respondent. The District Magistrate has directed by speaking order on 18-07-2018 that list of affected person be prepared and further directed such residents to proportionally deposit the estimated cost of shifting." 11. From perusal of the own stand taken by the respondent no.2, it is undisputed that 33 KV electricity line was installed in the year, 1995 without payment of any compensation to the land owners. It has also been admitted by the respondent no.2 that the licensee has exercised the powers conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the provisions of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 to install the overhead electric line in question. Averment made in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 that he has not demanded any amount but communicated them in pursuance of the order dated 18.07.2018, passed by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, is incorrect and contrary to own stand taken by the respondent no.3 that the residents have deposited process fees of Rs.1,000/- on 21.03.2017 and thereafter the Executive Engineer vide letter no.3686, dated 11.08.2017 apprised them that for shifting of the electric line in question, as per rules and conditions, a sum of Rs.29,77,848/- be deposited with the department so that shifting work may be completed. 12. The aforesaid facts are incorporated in the order of the District Magistrate dated 18.07.2018. That apart, it has also been mentioned in the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate that the electric line in question is liable to be shifted in public interest, otherwise, it may cause loss of life at any time. 12. The aforesaid facts are incorporated in the order of the District Magistrate dated 18.07.2018. That apart, it has also been mentioned in the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate that the electric line in question is liable to be shifted in public interest, otherwise, it may cause loss of life at any time. The order dated 18.07.2018, passed by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, is reproduced below : U;k;ky; ftykf/kdkjh dkS'kkEchA la[;k&- lu~ 2018 vUrxZr /kkjk& fofo/k 'k=q?ku feJ iq= ukxs'k nRr feJ fuoklh&ea>uiqj tuin dkS'kkEch cuke 1& mi [k.M vf/kdkjh ¼fo|qr½ ea>uiqj tuin dkS'kkEch 2& vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;ark ¼fo|qr½ dkS'kkEch ^^vkns'k** ifjoknh us fofo/k ÁkFkZuk i= ÁLrqr djrs gq, dgk gS fd vkslk fLFkr e.Mh ifj"kn ds lkeus ds lkeus vkoklh; Hkouksa ds Åij ls f[kpha 11000 cksYV ds fo|qr rkjksa dk tufgr esa gVkuk vko';d gSA vU;Fkk fdlh Hkh le; dksbZ ?kVuk ?kfVr gks ldrh gS] D;ksafd fo|qr rkjksa ds uhps yxHkx 50 ls vf/kd vkokl fufeZr gSA vkosnd ds ÁkFkZuk i= ds Øe esa foi{kh dks uksfVl Hksth x;hA ckn rkehyk foi{kh gkftj vnkyr vkdj dgk fd vkosnd f'kfQ~Vax jkf'k ckor Áklsl Qhl ds #i esa 1000@& dk;kZy; esa tek dj] ftlls gVkus esa vkus okyh lEHkkfor [kpZ dk vkdyu foHkkx dj ldsA vkosnd us fnukad 21-03-2017 dks 1000@ Áklsl Qhl tek dj fn;k] ftlds i'pkr fnukad 11-08-17 dks vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;ark us vius i=kad&3686 ds ek/;e ls voxr djk;k x;k fd Á'uxr 33 ds0oh0 ykbu gVkus esa fu;e o 'krksZa ds vk/kkj ij 2977848-00 #0 foHkkx esa vkosnd tek djsa] rkfd dks dk;Z dks iw.kZ fd;k tk ldsA vkosnd us fnukad 01-06-2018 dks ÁkFkZuk i= ÁLrqr djrs gq, dgk fd yEcs vjls ls ekeyk fopkjk/khu gSA ekeys dks xq.knks"k ij fuLrkj.k 'kh?kz fd;k tk;A ÁkFkZuk i= dk laKku ysrs gq, lquokbZ dh x;hA lquokbZ ds nkSjku foi{kh ds foHkkxh; iSjksdkj Hkh mifLFkr jgsA Ádkj.k esa iwoZ esa Hkh fnukad 28-04-2017 dks ÁcU/k funs'kd iwokZapy fo|qr forj.k fuxe fyfeVsM okjk.klh dks U;k;ky; }kjk i= Ásf"kr djrs gq, ;g jk; O;Dr dh x;h Fkh fd Á'uxr ekeys esa vkoklh; Hkouksa ds lkeus jktdh; vfrfFkx`g fLFkr gS tgka ij 'kklu ds Áfrfu/kh o mPpkf/kdkjh Ák;% fuokl djrs gSaA uo l`ftr tuin esa ,sls cgqrk;r vkoklh; Hkou ÁHkkfor gSA tufgr o yksdfgr esa Lo;eso dk;Zokgh djuk vkisf{kr gSA vU;Fkk fdlh Hkh le; tugkfu gks ldrh gSA fdUrq foi{kh }kjk dksbZ dk;Zokgh vkt rd vxzsrj lapkfyr ugha dh x;hA vkosnd ds vuqlkj foi{kh }kjk rS;kj dh x;h ÁkDdyu fjiksVZ esa tks LVhesaV ds vuqlkj /ku tek djuk gS] tks vR;f/kd gS vkSj fdlh ,d O;fDr }kjk bruh yEch /kujkf'k ugha tek fd;k tk ldrkA vkosnd ds rdksZa esa cy Árhr gksrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa foi{kh dks pkfg, Fkk fd Ákdyu fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj tks Hkh /kujkf'k tek gksuk gS mls Á'uxr fo|qr ifj"ks.k ykbu ds uhps LFkkfir Hkou Lokfe;ksa ls fgLlkuqlkj /kujkf'k tek djkdj fuekZ.k fd;k tk ldrk FkkA vr% eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWapk gwWa fd Ákdyu fjiksVZ esa ÁLrkfor /kujkf'k eq0 2977848-00 #0 tek djkus gsrq ftyk fpfdRlky; dkS'kkEch ls vkslk pkSjkgk rd ds ÁHkkfor Hkou Lokfe;ksa dk fpUghdj.k djrs gq, lwphc) ij lekuqikfrd n`f"V ls /kujkf'k tek djkuk mfpr gksxkA vr% vkns'k gqvk fd vf/k'kkf"k vfHk;ark ¼fo|qr½ dkS'kkEch dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ftyk fpfdRlky; dkS'kkEch ls vkslk pkSjkgk rd 33 ds0oh0 QhMj dks ikjsf"kr fo|qr ykbu ds uksps fLFkr Hkou Lokfe;ksa dk fpUghdj.k djk;k tk;A lwphc) djus ds i'pkr bu Hkou Lokfe;ksa ls vkuqikfrd fl)kUr ls ÁkdYu fjiksVZ esa ÁLrkfor /kujkf'k dks 30 fnu ds vUnj tek djkdj fo|qr ykbu dks leqfpr LFky ij LFkkfir fd;k tk;] ftlls fdlh Hkh Ádkj dh tu&/ku gkfu ls cpk tk ldsA Áxfr vk[;k fnukad 07-08-2018 rd v/kksgLrk{kjh ds ikl Ásf"kr dh tk;A fnukad 18-07-2018 Sd. ¼euh"k dqekj oekZ½ ftykf/kdkjh dkS'kkEch** 13. After the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, passed the aforequoted order, dated 18.07.2018, the respondent No.2 passed the revised estimate and intimated it to the respondent no.3 by his letter No.2916, dated 26.05.2022 as under : ^^mijksDr ds lEcU/k vkidks voxr djkuk gS fd rglhy fnol ea>uiqj esa fnukad 16-4-2022 dks ÁLrqr ÁkFkZuk i= esa v/kksgLrk{kjh dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd fnukad 18-07-2018 dks ek0 U;k;ky; ftykf/kdkjh dkS'kkEch ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa ÁkDdyu vk[;k esa ÁLrkfor /kujkf'k #0 2977847-00 iqu% la'kksf/kr /kujkf'k #0 3578595-00 olwyh gsrq 33 ds0oh0 ykbu ds uhps vkslk pkSjkgs ls ftyk vLirky ds chp ÁHkkfor Hkq[k.M Lokeh o Hkou Lokfe;ksa dks fpfUgr fd;k x;k ek0 rglhynkj egksn; ea>uiqj dh vk[;k ds vuqlkj dqy 81 Hkw[k.M ,oa Hkou Lokeh gSA ¼lwph layXu gS½ vkidks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq Ásf"kr gSA** 14. Compelled with the situation, each of the petitioners have deposited the proportionate sum of Rs.44200/- with the respondent no.2 on 15.06.2022 and 24.08.2022 respectively. However, electric line could not be shifted for the reason that some of the residents have not deposited the amount. 15. On the admitted facts of the case and in the light of the relevant provisions of law, grievance of the petitioners need to be examined. Therefore, for ready reference the provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are reproduced below : Electric Act, 2003 "164. Exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in certain cases.-The Appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for the placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for the proper co-ordination of works, confer upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this Act, subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate Government may think fit to impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under the Act with respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government or to be so established or maintained." Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 17. Removal or alteration of telegraph line or post on property other than that of a local authority.-(1) When, under the foregoing provisions of this Act, a telegraph line or post has been placed by the telegraph authority under, over, along, across, in or upon any property, not being property vested in or under the control or management of a local authority, and any person entitled to do so desires to deal with that property in such a manner as to render it necessary or convenient that the telegraph line or post should be removed to another part thereof or to a higher or lower level or altered in form, he may require the telegraph authority to remove or alter the line or post accordingly: Provided that, if compensation has been paid under section 10, clause (d), he shall, when making the requisition, tender to the telegraph authority the amount requisite to defray the expense of the removal or alteration, or half of the amount paid as compensation, whichever may be the smaller sum. (2) If the telegraph authority omits to comply with the requisition, the person making it may apply to the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the property is situate to order the removal or alteration. (3) A District Magistrate receiving an application under sub-section (2) may, in his discretion, reject the same or make an order, absolutely or subject to conditions, for the removal of the telegraph line or post to any other part of the property or to a higher or lower level or for the alteration of its form; and the order so made shall be final." 16. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, the respondent No.2 has specifically admitted that no compensation was paid to the land owners in respect of the installation of 33 KV overhead electric line. Thus, it is admitted to the respondents that while installing the electric line in question, no compensation was paid to the owners. It is also admitted to the respondents that the aforesaid electric line was installed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the Act, 1885. Section 17 of the Act, 1885 provides for removal or alteration of telegraph line or post on property other than that of a local authority. It is also admitted to the respondents that the aforesaid electric line was installed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the Act, 1885. Section 17 of the Act, 1885 provides for removal or alteration of telegraph line or post on property other than that of a local authority. Sub section (1) of Section 17 of the Act, 1885 specifically provides that under the provisions of the Act, 1885 a telegraph line or post has been placed by the telegraph authority under, over, along, across, in or upon any property, not being property vested in or under the control or management of a local authority, and any person entitled to do so desires to deal with that property in such a manner as to render it necessary or convenient that the telegraph line or post should be removed to another part thereof or to a higher or lower level or altered in form, he may require the telegraph authority to remove or alter the line or post accordingly. 17. Thus, while making requisition for the removal of the electricity line in question, the petitioners were required to deposit the requisite amount to defray the expenses of the removal or alteration or half of the amount paid as compensation, whichever may be the smaller sum. Since, as per admitted case of the respondent no.2, no compensation was paid to the owners of the land for installation of the electric line in question, therefore, no amount was required to be deposited by the petitioners or other affected persons in terms of Section 17 of the Act, 1885 for removal of the electricity line in question. Under the circumstances, the demand of Rs.29,77,848/- or revised demand of Rs.3578595/- issued by the respondent no.2 for removal of the electricity line in question, was without authority of law. 18. Under the circumstances, the order of the District Magistrate, dated 18.07.2018 to the extent enforcing the demand of Rs.29,77,848/- by the respondent no.2 for removal of the electric line in question, was wholly without authority of law. 19. 18. Under the circumstances, the order of the District Magistrate, dated 18.07.2018 to the extent enforcing the demand of Rs.29,77,848/- by the respondent no.2 for removal of the electric line in question, was wholly without authority of law. 19. The submissions of learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the petitioners have an alternative remedy under Rule 3 of the Works of Lincensees Rules, 2006, has no substance inasmuch as the demand made by the respondents of Rs.29,77,848/- or the revised demand of Rs.35,78,595/- for removal of the electricity line in question is without authority of law. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not barred merely on account of availability of an alternative remedy. The law in this regard is well settled. Suffice is to refer a judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2015 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition ( Tax) No. 255 of 2012 (M/s Shree Bhawani Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Another). 20. Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers very vide powers on High Court to issue writs but this power is discretionary and the High Court may refuse to exercise the discretion, if it is satisfied that the aggrieved person has adequate or suitable remedy elsewhere. It is a rule of discretion and not rule of compulsion or the rule of law. Even though, there may be an alternative remedy, yet the High Court may entertain a writ petition depending upon the facts of each case. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down inflexible rule to be applied rigidly for entertaining a writ petition. Some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; are as under:- (i) Where there is complete lack of jurisdiction in the officer or authority to take the action or to pass the order impugned. (ii) Where vires of an Act, Rules, Notification or any of its provisions has been challenged. (iii) Where an order prejudicial to the writ petitioner has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. (iv) Where enforcement of any fundamental right is sought by the petitioner. (v) Where procedure required for decision has not been adopted. (vi) Where Tax is levied without authority of law. (vii) Where decision is an abuse of process of law. (iii) Where an order prejudicial to the writ petitioner has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. (iv) Where enforcement of any fundamental right is sought by the petitioner. (v) Where procedure required for decision has not been adopted. (vi) Where Tax is levied without authority of law. (vii) Where decision is an abuse of process of law. (viii) Where palpable injustice shall be caused to the petitioner, if he is forced to adopt remedies under the statute for enforcement of any fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (ix) Where a decision or policy decision has already been taken by the Government rendering the remedy of appeal to be an empty formality or futile attempt. (x) Where there is no factual dispute but merely a pure question of law or interpretation is involved. 21. The above principles are supported by law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 403 , Collector of Customs v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506 , Collector of Customs & Excise, Cochin & Ors. v. A.S. Bava, AIR 1968 SC 13 , Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, L.K. Verma v. HMT Ltd. and Anr., (2006) 2 SCC 269 , Paras 13 and 20, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Jahan Khan (2007) 10 SCC 88 para 12, Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others (2007) 8 SCC 338 , BCPP Mazdoor Sangh v. NTPC, (2007) 14 SCC 234 (para 19), Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 632 (para 3), Mumtaz Post Graduate Degree College v. University of Lucknow, (2009) 2 SCC 630 (para 22 and 23), Godrej Sara Lee Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (AA), (2009) 14 SCC 338 . 14, Union of India v. Mangal Textile Mills (I) (P) Ltd., (2010) 14 SCC 553 (paras 6, 7, 10 and 12), Union of India v. Tantia Construction (P) Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 697 , Southern Electricity Supply Co. 14, Union of India v. Mangal Textile Mills (I) (P) Ltd., (2010) 14 SCC 553 (paras 6, 7, 10 and 12), Union of India v. Tantia Construction (P) Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 697 , Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108 (paras 79, 80, 81, 82, 86, 87 and 88), State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagaich, (2013) 7 SCC 25 (para 34, 35, 38, 39), State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499 (para 11 to 19), Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, JT (2006) 12 SC 92, State of Tripura v. Manoranjan Chakraborty, (2001) 10 SCC 740 para 4; Paradip Port Trust v. Sales Tax Officer and Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 90 , Feldohf Auto & Gas Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1998) 9 SCC 710 ; Isha Beebi v. Tax Recovery Officer, (1976) 1 SCC 70 (para 5); Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 ; Guruvayur Devasworn Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, (2003) 7 SCC 546 (para 67, 68). 22. In the case of Union of India & others Vs. Major General Shri Kant Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 773 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is a settled canon of law that the High Court should not normally interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where statutory alternative remedy is available but it is equally settled that this canon of law is not free of exceptions. The Courts, including the Supreme Court, have taken the view that statutory remedy, if provided under a specific law, would impliedly oust the jurisdiction of the civil courts. The High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain writ or appropriate proceedings despite availability of an alternative remedy. This jurisdiction, the High Court would exercise with some circumspection in exceptional cases, particularly, where the cases involve a pure question of law or vires of an Act are challenged. 23. In view of the settled law, as discussed above, we do not find any substance in the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 regarding the availability of alternative remedy and, consequently, the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 is rejected. 24. 23. In view of the settled law, as discussed above, we do not find any substance in the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 regarding the availability of alternative remedy and, consequently, the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 is rejected. 24. Respondent no.2 is directed to remove the electricity line in question pursuant to their own decision, expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, without demanding any amount from the petitioners or other affected persons towards removal/shifting charges of the electricity line in question. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to apply before the respondent No.3 for refund of the amount in terms of this judgment. 25. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.