1. Leave granted.

2. The property of the appellant was put up for sale under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 on 27-8-1992, in connection with the dues of Cemento Corporation to State Bank of India. According to the Bank the appellant had guaranteed the repayment of Cemento Corporation dues.

3. On 9-9-1992 the appellant made an application before the Certificate Officer, Respondent 2 herein, objecting to the sale on various grounds. The objection of the appellant was rejected by the Certificate Officer on 25-9-1992. On the same date the appellants property was sold to Respondent 4 for Rs 80,000.

4. Challenging the sale and the rejection of her objection, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. By an order dated 9-11-1992 the High Court issued a notice, inter alia, to the auction purchaser on the writ petition, and passed an interim order staying the operation of the order of the Certificate Officer dated 25-9-1992, rejecting the appellants objection to the sale. It is not in dispute that notice of the writ petition was duly served to all the respondents including the auction purchaser. The writ petition ultimately came up for hearing on 16-8-1993. After arguments had been heard to some extent, an offer was made on behalf of the appellant that the appellant would pay the sum of Rs 80,000, namely, the price at which the appellants property had been sold to Respondent 4. The Court accepted the offer, which was said to be a fair one, and the auction sale in favour of Respondent 4 was directed to be set aside subject to the appellant depositing a sum of Rs 80,000 before the Certification Officer within two weeks. State Bank of India which was the certificate creditor was given the liberty of withdrawing the amount without any security. The Bank was also given leave to realise the balance amount due, if any, through the certificate proceedings in accordance with law. It is the admitted case that after the writ petition was disposed of the appellant deposited the sum of Rs 80,000 with the Certificate Officer within the specified period and the Certificate Officer forwarded the sum of Rs 80,000 deposited by the appellant to State Bank by three demand drafts, all dated 26-8-1993. Ultimately on 3-5-1995 the appellant paid a further sum of rupees one lakh to State Bank in full satisfaction of the outstanding amount payable by Cemento Corporation to the Bank. The Bank thereafter wrote to the Certificate Officer recording the aforesaid and requesting that further certificate proceedings should be dropped and the case be treated as closed.

5. A review application was filed by Respondent 4 in 1993 before the High Court seeking a review of the order dated 16-8-1993. The review application was allowed by the order of the High Court on 22-7-2002 which is the subject matter of the present appeal. The grounds on which the review were allowed were: (1) that despite the submission on behalf of the respondents that the appellant had been served notice in respect of the certificate proceedings, the Division Bench allowed the appellant to set aside the sale on the deposit of the purchased money, and (2) that no direction had been issued for the refund of the money to the auction purchaser. The appellants writ petition was accordingly revived.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant has approached this Court under Art.136 of the Constitution.

7. Before this Court it was submitted by the appellant that the High Court could not have reviewed the matter which had been heard and disposed of after arguments by the parties. It was further submitted that the order dated 16-8-1993 disposing of the appellants writ petition had worked itself out and that, therefore, on the basis of this Courts decision in State of Nagaland v. Toulvi Kibami (2003 (8) SCC 671 [LQ/SC/2003/1048] ) the review application ought to have been dismissed.

8. Respondent 4 auction purchaser had submitted before this Court that entertainment of the writ application was entirely incorrect as the provided for specific remedies in the event any person was aggrieved by an order of sale and particularly S.28, 29 and 30 thereof. Secondly, it was stated that the sale was absolute and had been declared as such by the certificate issued by the Certificate Officer on 29-10-1992 and could not be impugned under S.31 of the. It was also drawn to the Courts attention that the certificate of sale had not been challenged by the appellant in her writ petition. It was also submitted that Respondent 4 had deposited a further amount of rupees one lakh twenty thousand with the principal debtor, Cemento Corporation on 6-11-1992. It was submitted that the High Court did not err in setting aside the decision of the writ court in review having regard to such material irregularity in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

9. We are of the view that the appeal must be allowed and the impugned decision of the High Court be set aside. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 is not curtailed by the existence of an alternative remedy although, as is well established, the existence of such a remedy would be a factor which the Court would take into consideration for the purpose of refusing relief in any particular case. Secondly, we are not satisfied that any grounds had been made out for review of the decision of the writ court. Respondent 4 had, admittedly, received notice of the writ petition and was represented by counsel when the writ was disposed of on 16-8-1993. No counter affidavit had been filed opposing the writ petition. There also appears to be substance in the submission of the appellant that when the order had worked itself out in that, nothing further remained to be performed under the order in respect of which review was sought, the High Court should not have interfered and set the clock back as it were, after almost a decade. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the decision of the High Court is set aside. However, we make it clear that in the event Respondent 4 has deposited the amount of eighty thousand with the Certificate Officer pursuant to the auction, the Certificate Officer, or if the Certificate Officer has forwarded such amount to State Bank of India, State Bank of India shall refund the amount to Respondent 4 with 6% simple interest from the date on which either the account of Certificate Officer or the account of State Bank was credited with the aforesaid amount. We make it clear that we are not deciding whether any such payment of Rs 80,000 was in fact made by Respondent 4 pursuant to the auction sale or in respect of the auction sale held in September 1992 of the appellants property. It will be open to the Bank to take such consequential action that may be necessary as a result of this Courts decision either against the principal debtor or against the appellant as it may be advised and is available to it in accordance with law.